Gun free zone = killing spree zone


Str8Shooter
 Share

Recommended Posts

My argument is that you are about as likely to use your gun as I am to use a grout tool, when out in public.

 

Perhaps; but no one ever died for the lack of a trowel. 

 

Fourteen thousand Americans were murdered last year; and I'll bet a few thousand of those could have been prevented if the victims were armed.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Congrats - there's a place for you as a disciple of Christ:

Just keep in mind these guys' kids had to take up arms and become the stripling warriors, fighting and killing bad guys so their parents could live. That's a valid way as well. There's room for both philosophies. Don't judge mine, and I won't judge yours. Deal?

Above is the answer, plain and simple. It's how the founding fathers wanted it.

If someone does not want guns around, they can choose not to own one and allow those who do want a gun the right to have one.

Nobody, except for the federal government, has the authority to ban guns. It is a constitutional right. Private property owners can trespass people if they want, but cities, public schools, publicly owned airports, counties and states have NO authority to ban guns on their property, but they do it anyway.

Edited by Str8Shooter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

It bothered me, in another thread, that a brother would take a gun into a Sealing room in the temple because he won't take the few minutes to check it into a locker (police officer or not).

 

 

 

 

To be rather blunt, your statement is silly...at best.

Edited by mirkwood
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My argument is that you are about as likely to use your gun as I am to use a grout tool, when out in public.

 

 

I don't recall the news ever reporting on someone using a grout tool as a defensive tool in the news.  Ever.  Neuro follows that kind of news more then me, maybe he can recall a time...

Edited by mirkwood
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No gun in my house and I am reducing the chance of someone I know getting shot.

 

I don't see how you figure that.

Many people without a gun get shot.  In fact, what this whole thread is based on, a shooting at a college, all the people that got shot did not have a gun.

Conversely, I'm sure there are people who own many guns, and someone breaks in, they don't wake up, and they get shot.

I don't think the two ideas are related.

I think you are confusing coincidence with causation.

dc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a silly statement. Being a temple worker in a rather dangerous City, I have often thought, " I hope there's an officer here who is packing a gun." The only defense we have is an alarm that goes off in Salt Lake! It seems Christians are under attack, and I for one would rather worry about it, be pro-active than sit with a bullet in my head. (to quote another post.)

 

Our U.S. government won't let this tragedy pass without attempting to take away our rights. Their objective is to restrict the American people. They mis-lead us through the media, they distract us, and what then, we gladly give away our rights and liberty? I believe when law abiding citizens are armed, it prevents gun related crimes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My argument is that you are about as likely to use your gun as I am to use a grout tool, when out in public.

Now that's flatly a stupid statement.  You are cherry picking to try to make a rather reasonable statement look silly.  As I stated in my previous post, I carry a flashlight, a knife, a leatherman multitool which has several screwerivers, a knife, pliers, wirecutters, a flle etc.  I also carry a firestarter, a lighter, and a few others.  Some of these tools I use regularly, others I've never used.  I still take them with me. 

 

Now as to your idiotic (to be overly kind) grout tool comparison.  If I need a grout tool and don't have one,  the consequences are pretty much non-existent.  If I don't have a gun and need one, the chances that I or someone I or someone I care about dies is far higher than I am willing to accept. If YOU are willing to accept the risk, that is YOUR business.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have some basic training with firearms.  I hope all I ever use the training for is to shoot holes in targets at a shooting range.  I hope those who do carry firearms with them train regularly.  Do not let more than a few months go by without shooting them.  Do dry fire practice safely with them a few times a week and learn to use your sights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those that think they are safe enough and do not need a gun it is only because someone else is carrying a gun to protect them.  The truth is of this modern age to be safe someone has to carry a gun to protect those that do not.  My personal reasoning is that since guns are necessary to protect me - I would rather they not carry that responsibility without any willingness on my part to so engage if ever necessary.

 

I decided in my youth that if any would have to go into combat to protect me and my loved one - I would want that ability and understanding for myself.  Not because I do not want to rely on other but when it comes to me and my loved one - I do not want those protecting us to think that they must do so without my willingness to back them.  Since someone must - I will not force responsibility on anyone that I am not willing to share.   I believe such thing should not be left to those that enjoy doing such things - I believe that if we are not willing to defend ourselves - there is not rational reason to expect anyone else to do for us what we refuse to do for ourselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those that think they are safe enough and do not need a gun it is only because someone else is carrying a gun to protect them.  The truth is of this modern age to be safe someone has to carry a gun to protect those that do not.  ...

Tell me how saying this is warranted because the way I'm interpreting it I don't believe it. Are you talking about odds? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe this will help: Civilization is a thin, a very thin, layer we drape over ourselves to hide some pretty horrible realities.  There are two things that keep that layer intact.  First are individual's desires to be good.  Second are the presence of people willing and able to return horribleness with violence.

 

Lord of the Flies explores the issue in depth.  Or if you're looking for something a little more pop-culture-ly, any good zombie apocalypse film would work.

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have no murder zones, no trespassing zones, no vehicle zones, no pedestrian zones, but they don't work 100% either.. perhaps we should rethink those as well.

 

they do not create an area that is significantly more or less dangerous...

 
While you are correct in saying such zones do not eliminate any offending behavior, it is a different effect. 
 
1) No murder zones?  I haven't heard of that, unless you're talking about EVERYWHERE. Which would make any statement on the matter as well as such a label moot.
2) No tespassing zones, etc. do not ATTRACT the offending behavior by their very existence.  Gun free zones do.  There is a reason these gun free zones have been a magnet for mass shootings.  If a murderer is set on murdering (something that "zones" cannot have any effect on) then they will want to do it in a place where there is least resistance.
 
 

It's a matter of tradeoffs of what kind of risks you are willing to take.

 

 

Yes, it is.  And I'd really like a list of the trade offs that you are talking about.  Because when you actually list them, I hope you'll realize just how specious your arguments are.

 

... countering a gun that is used efficiently is extremely difficult (fortunately many criminals aren't that competent, or competent enough.. but then same could be said about many legal gun owners)

 

True, true, and true.  But the bottom line here is that we're still better off without gun free zones and with an armed population.

 

Honestly, I think people on both sides of the gun control debate are living in fear.  That's why it arouses so much passion.

 

 

 

Do you "live in fear" of getting a ticket?  Is that why you carry your driver's license with you all the time?

 

I want to carry a gun with me because it's my right.  Not because of fear or even safety.  It's just something I do.  And I take it as an affront that some want to take this right away from me as much as I would be offended if someone told me I was messed up in the head for wearing my garments. (And, yes, you know they have).

 

I didn't grow up with guns.  I've shot them a few times, but I HATE handling them and generally dislike even being around them (I've finally spent enough time in court where I don't mind seeing uniformed bailiffs carrying them, but otherwise--ick).

 

I honestly think you've been brainwashed (Holder anyone?) into thinking that guns are "icky".  If you regularly handle them, and regularly have them around... obviously you'd get used to them.

 

I was never brainwashed either way.  I never even had a gun until about 12 years ago.  Never owned a handgun until about 7 years ago.  I never thought of them as "icky" or "scary".  

 

And the first time I owned one, I was as careful as I was around my skillsaw.  It is a powerful thing and if you don't know proper safety measures you know the damage you can do.  But as you learned proper safety and handling, you get used to it.  

 

You never abandon safety measures.  And with practice you're no longer timid about it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe when law abiding citizens are armed, it prevents gun related crimes.

 

It seems to me to be an odd situation when the solution to the problem of a man with a gun shooting at people is another man with a gun shooting at people. This is just an outsider's perspective from someone who does not live in the USA. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you "live in fear" of getting a ticket?  Is that why you carry your driver's license with you all the time?

 

Erm . . . yes?

 

 

I want to carry a gun with me because it's my right.  Not because of fear or even safety.  It's just something I do.  And I take it as an affront that some want to take this right away from me as much as I would be offended if someone told me I was messed up in the head for wearing my garments. (And, yes, you know they have).

 

We don't have a lot of experience together, but I'm actually leery of gun control efforts and very pro-second amendment generally.  I think that "because it's a constitutional right" is an excellent reason for it to be legal to own/carry firearms generally. 

 

On the other hand, when I'm deciding how I personally will behave--"because I can" isn't usually a major part of the calculus.  If/when I ever get proper training, a CCW and a firearm, I won't carry just "because I can" (or, like some of these Open Carry chuckleheads, because I get a rise out of annoying others); I'll carry because I believe my personal protection shouldn't be outsourced to police in the places and situations I anticipate being for that day.

 

 

I honestly think you've been brainwashed (Holder anyone?) into thinking that guns are "icky".  If you regularly handle them, and regularly have them around... obviously you'd get used to them.

 

I don't regularly handle them; that's the thing.  It doesn't take a Democrat slimeball AG to make me uncomfortable with holding the power to kill in my hands--I think that sort of caution is entirely appropriate to someone as inexperienced as myself.  :)

 

But anyways, my larger point was that even though I, personally feel that way for the time being--I manage to go through life without feeling some kind of moral imperative to demonize the people who feel differently.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 "because I can" 

I agree, the "because I can" reasoning is a weak one, one with which many parents (no relation to political party) justify any decision they make to their children.

I urge people to realize that "The apple doesn't fall far from the tree". As a child sees, learns, and grows so will it do one day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems very logical to me, that if someone is taking innocent lives, you take them out. It also seems very logical to me that

armed citizens can do that. The guns will never be taken out of the hands of a criminal, so why should innocent people be sitting ducks?

 

I read this statement somewhere, " The reason I lock my doors is for the criminals safety, not mine."  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Erm . . . yes?

 

 

I have to point out the fine line difference which I think applies to guns and crimminals as well.

 

When you get your stuff together in the morning, do you honestly say to yourself,"Well, I'd better take my DL because I SOOO would not like to be taken down to the station because I didn't bring it."  And if you happen to forget your wallet one day and get to work and realize it, are you sweating bullets the entire time you're driving home before you can get your precious DL again?  If so, you need to get your head examined.  And that in NO WAY describes the average joe who has his CHL.

 

If instead, you're saying,"I know it's what I have to do just in case." and once it's in your pocket, you pretty much forget about it until you are actually pulled over -- that's what I'm talking about.

 

 

On the other hand, when I'm deciding how I personally will behave--"because I can" isn't usually a major part of the calculus...

I agree, the "because I can" reasoning is a weak one...

 

I re-read my post and your posts and realized I was not clear in my wording and gave you an answer that is usually aimed at people of other backgrounds.  So I understand your reactions.  I apologize.  Allow me to rectify that.

 

Mountain climbers are often asked, "Why do you do it?"

The appropriate response is,"Because it's there."

 

There is obviously much more to it.  But it comes with a background and culture of mountain climbing that holds "mountains" more information, passion, and history.

 

It is common wisdom that "just because one can do a thing, it does not necessarily follow that one must do a thing."  

 

It is also wisdom that if there is nothing wrong with doing something, then the onus is upon you to say why one should NOT do a thing.

 

Why would I say,"Because I can"?  

 

I hear too often,"Why would you need to have...X?"  Whatever "X" is, it is upon the asker of the question to explain why one should NOT have X.  Why would you need a handgun?  Why would you need a magazine with so many rounds?  Why would you need to buy more than one gun?  Why do you need to carry concealed?  Why do you need to carry open?  Why???

 

Because the onus is on others to explain why I should NOT, my shorthand answer is,"Because I can."

 

But you did not actually ask those questions, so I should not have given that response to you in particular.  For this I apologize.  I hope this clarifies things.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to point out the fine line difference which I think applies to guns and crimminals as well.

 

When you get your stuff together in the morning, do you honestly say to yourself,"Well, I'd better take my DL because I SOOO would not like to be taken down to the station because I didn't bring it."  And if you happen to forget your wallet one day and get to work and realize it, are you sweating bullets the entire time you're driving home before you can get your precious DL again?  If so, you need to get your head examined.  And that in NO WAY describes the average joe who has his CHL.

 

If instead, you're saying,"I know it's what I have to do just in case." and once it's in your pocket, you pretty much forget about it until you are actually pulled over -- that's what I'm talking about.

 

I'm not sure it's really a "fine line" so much as a very fuzzy fade from black to white.  At some place, in the back of your mind, there's always the possibility that you may need it, so you act out of caution/habit--but caution/habit that's rooted in some degree of fear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet another example of how gun free zones are ridiculous and they do not work.

http://www.katu.com/news/local/Reports-Active-shooter-on-the-Umpqua-Community-College-campus--330285921.html?mobile=y

It is so strange and so confusing to me how people fear guns. Guns cannot act on their own. It's seems that society is afraid place blame on humans for fear of offending, so they blame an inanimate object. It's primal logic and completely ludicrous. Place blame on the mentally ill human behind the gun and allow the mentally healthy to defend themselves.

The police are NOT the first responders. We, the citizens, are the first responders. Citizens should not have to run, hide, cower in fear, and be murdered, waiting for the police to come save them. That is a crippling way to live and very sad.

Very, very, sad.

 

I was a cop for 13 years and from my experience, the police are not really even first responders.  They are the clean up crew; they clean the mess up after the crime has been committed.  In all my years of experience, I can count the number of times I happened on a crime in progress, or responded in time to a crime in progress on both hands (not counting traffic stops).  More often than I care for, the perp isn't ever caught, especially if he is an above average criminal.

 

The best way to protect yourself is get educated on how to protect yourself in the first place.  I DO NOT recommend everyone run out and buy a weapon if you are afraid to use it.  A perp will take it and use it against you.  If you do decide to arm yourself, learn the law; learn what you can and cannot do in your defense.  After that, learn how to use your weapon and then practice, practice, practice every month.

 

Something else to remember: if you ever do have to shoot in self-defense, your never shoot to kill.  You are shooting to stop the perpetrator. You should have been trained to shoot center mass.  Of course, this is where all the vital organs are, but this also is where your rounds must go in order to stop the perp.  If he happens to die as a result of you stopping the attack, well, that's too bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jojoBag

I have to agree with you on that.  Police are seldom first responders, but that's the litany we hear preached daily.  We are the first responders.  We are the ones there.  And we have the right, no, the duty to respond as do these alleged 'first responders" who are just coming along later to clean up the scene, or do an "investigation".

dc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JAG,

 

My point was that it is one thing to say I'm "living in fear" vs. understanding that there is a possibility and preparing for it.  We could just consider carrying a weapon another form of emergency preparedness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jojoBag

I have to agree with you on that.  Police are seldom first responders, but that's the litany we hear preached daily.  We are the first responders.  We are the ones there.  And we have the right, no, the duty to respond as do these alleged 'first responders" who are just coming along later to clean up the scene, or do an "investigation".

dc

I've had the misfortune of being the "first responder" in a tragedy.

...that is, the first person on-scene who both had a cell phone *and* a working knowledge of how to use a fire extinguisher.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is my opinion:  I do not see any difference in attitude between a person that says, "I see no need know how to use a gun or to worry about how to defend my self, my family, my friends, community and country when there are professionals in our government and society capable and able to do this for all of us."  Or a person that says, "I see no need to become educated in a profession or to worry about providing for my self and my community when the government is actually responsible, capable and willing to provide for all our actual needs. 

 

It is in my mind a attitude of liberty and freedom in contrast to a enslaved population that must be "taken care" of.   It is the bases of the division in heaven in the pre-existence that began the "war" in heaven that we see continuing during our mortal probation.  Is is part (but not all) of the attitude that separates a Celestial individual from those of other kingdoms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I DO NOT recommend everyone run out and buy a weapon if you are afraid to use it.  A perp will take it and use it against you.  If you do decide to arm yourself, learn the law; learn what you can and cannot do in your defense.  After that, learn how to use your weapon and then practice, practice, practice every month.

 

Something else to remember: if you ever do have to shoot in self-defense, your never shoot to kill.  You are shooting to stop the perpetrator. You should have been trained to shoot center mass.  Of course, this is where all the vital organs are, but this also is where your rounds must go in order to stop the perp.  If he happens to die as a result of you stopping the attack, well, that's too bad.

 

Yep - a lot of wisdom there.  Guns are not magic talismans that ward off evil.  They're a complex tool requiring training and discipline to use effectively.   And it's important to know what you are trying to achieve and how you're going about achieving it, before you use it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share