Gun free zone = killing spree zone

[Still_Small_Voice]

I hate the phrase "high capacity" and I try to avoid using it.  There are standard capacity magazines and crippled capacity magazines in my mind.  High capacity infers that it is too much and you do not need it.  What people who argue against ammunition capacity fail to address is multiple opponents and the lack of power most handguns cartridges have unless you are using a high power handgun.  Standard capacity magazines are what police use because of this.  Is anyone's life less valuable than a police officer's or a politician who is trying to ban what they themselves are protected by?

 

Gunfights involving the police are a very interesting subject.  One of the reasons cops train constantly is that in a typical gun fight, 80% of all shots are missed, which is why you need a high capacity magazine.  You get a little nervous when someone is trying to kill you, along with both you and your target moving around.

[Guest]

Anatess,

 

I need to clarify this statistic.  The term "gun ownership rate" gives the impression that 88% of the people own at least one gun.  That is obviously not true.

 

This statstic means that there are 88 private guns in circulation per 100 people.  Since most gunowners own multiple guns, about 33% of the population owns a gun.

 

Thanks!  Yes, that's a good thing to point out.

 

But also... the statistic of gun ownership rate in South Africa and the Philippines is calculated in the same manner - number of guns versus number of population.  So, the 5% gun ownership rate in the Philippines also does not directly indicate that 5% of the population owns guns as those who do have guns tend to own multiples.

 

This is relevant enough for gun control discussions as gun control doesn't care a whit about how many people own guns, only that there are guns.

[Blackmarch]

I hate the phrase "high capacity" and I try to avoid using it.  There are standard capacity magazines and crippled capacity magazines in my mind.  High capacity infers that it is too much and you do not need it.  What people who argue against ammunition capacity fail to address is multiple opponents and the lack of power most handguns cartridges have unless you are using a high power handgun.  Standard capacity magazines are what police use because of this.  Is anyone's life less valuable than a police officer's or a politician who is trying to ban what they themselves are protected by?

every mag is a crippled cap......

[JojoBag]

I hate the phrase "high capacity" and I try to avoid using it.  There are standard capacity magazines and crippled capacity magazines in my mind.  High capacity infers that it is too much and you do not need it.  What people who argue against ammunition capacity fail to address is multiple opponents and the lack of power most handguns cartridges have unless you are using a high power handgun.  Standard capacity magazines are what police use because of this.  Is anyone's life less valuable than a police officer's or a politician who is trying to ban what they themselves are protected by?

Yeah, you've got a point.  Personally, if it were practical, I'd get the 100 round dual drum, C-Mag for my Glock.  The only problem is that it's pretty difficult to conceal and would make me list to starboard.

[NeuroTypical]

Here in Colorado, after the Aurora theater killing, our blue legislature and blue governor went on a legislating spree and pushed through a bunch of horrible gun bills, including one of these 'high cap magazine bans'.  

 

Wikipedia has a fairly good summary:

On March 20, 2013, Hickenlooper signed bills HB1224, HB1228 and HB1229. HB1224 created a limit of 15 rounds in magazines that could be bought, sold or transferred within the state. HB1229 requires background checks for any firearm transfer within the state, and HB1228 taxes firearm transfers to recover costs of the background checks from HB1229. Opponents of these bills gathered enough signatures to trigger special recall elections that resulted in the recall of Democratic Senate President John Morse, and Democratic Senator Angela Giron. Democratic Senator Evie Hudak later resigned rather than face her own recall election on this issue.

 

What Wiki fails to mention here, is that just about every single county Sheriff in the state joined together in a lawsuit against several of these bills, especially the magazine limit bill.  Totally unenforceable.  It made just about every legal gun owner in potential hot water - including me.  Last I heard, the DA's office and law enforcement had a gentleman's nod agreement that everyone would just ignore these stupid bills and not bother trying to enforce any of them.

 

What Wiki also fails to mention, is that if we had recalled Hudak (which we were on track to do), the whole state legislature would have flipped from democrat to republican.  Hudak's resignation meant the dems could appoint their own replacement.   The whole issue made international news, and had a (welcome and needed) chilling effect on dumb gun control attempts across the nation.  

 

We sent a pretty darn clear message: "Hey politician!  You want to get in front of this gun outrage and start legislating from a position of emotional idiocy?  Well, prepare to spend some time running for your own job in a non-election year, because we'll fire you like we fired Morse and Giron."

[JojoBag]

Here in Colorado, after the Aurora theater killing, our blue legislature and blue governor went on a legislating spree and pushed through a bunch of horrible gun bills, including one of these 'high cap magazine bans'.  

 

Wikipedia has a fairly good summary:

 

 

 

What Wiki fails to mention here, is that just about every single county Sheriff in the state joined together in a lawsuit against several of these bills, especially the magazine limit bill.  Totally unenforceable.  It made just about every legal gun owner in potential hot water - including me.  Last I heard, the DA's office and law enforcement had a gentleman's nod agreement that everyone would just ignore these stupid bills and not bother trying to enforce any of them.

 

What Wiki also fails to mention, is that if we had recalled Hudak (which we were on track to do), the whole state legislature would have flipped from democrat to republican.  Hudak's resignation meant the dems could appoint their own replacement.   The whole issue made international news, and had a (welcome and needed) chilling effect on dumb gun control attempts across the nation.  

 

We sent a pretty darn clear message: "Hey politician!  You want to get in front of this gun outrage and start legislating from a position of emotional idiocy?  Well, prepare to spend some time running for your own job in a non-election year, because we'll fire you like we fired Morse and Giron."

 

Wikipedia is nothing but a socialist rag and is quite often nothing more than a way for propaganda to be spread.

[NeuroTypical]

Oh, that's arguable, but I can agree with you that Wiki isn't the end-all rock-solid source.  That said, as someone who lived through the events described, who was one of the throngs who poured into the streets and fought for the recall, I can vouch for the accuracy and relevance of what I've quoted here. 

 

Here's a semi-recent update on the Sheriff's lawsuit. 

[Still_Small_Voice]

It is very sad.  In April 2015 the Colorado fifteen round magazine ban repeal came up for vote.  It was defeated by only a single representative's vote in favor of the ban.  It is a feel good law that only makes self defense for the law abiding more difficult.

 

Read about the vote here:  http://www.coloradoindependent.com/152586/colorado-gop-gun-rights-bills-go-down-in-lopsided-battle/comment-page-1#comment-1378358

 

What Wikipedia fails to mention here, is that just about every single county Sheriff in the state joined together in a lawsuit against several of these bills, especially the magazine limit bill.  Totally unenforceable.  It made just about every legal gun owner in potential hot water - including me.  Last I heard, the District Attorney's office and law enforcement had a gentleman's nod agreement that everyone would just ignore these stupid bills and not bother trying to enforce any of them.

 

What Wikipedia also fails to mention, is that if we had recalled Hudak (which we were on track to do), the whole state legislature would have flipped from democrat to republican.  Hudak's resignation meant the dems could appoint their own replacement.   The whole issue made international news, and had a (welcome and needed) chilling effect on dumb gun control attempts across the nation.

[NeuroTypical]

It is very sad.  In April 2015 the Colorado fifteen round magazine ban repeal came up for vote.  It was defeated by only a single representative's vote in favor of the ban.  It is a feel good law that only makes self defense for the law abiding more difficult.

 

Yep - the one vote deal, is because the third recall (Hudak) resulted in her resignation, so the Colorado legislature stayed on the blue side of purple by one vote.   2016, baby, 2016.

[Ffenix]

I'm all for private property rights.  I respect the rights of businessowners, homeowners, private schools and universities and whatnot, to ban guns.

 

But they're stupid if they do so without hardening security.  Because banning guns does squat to make people safe.  They may make people feel safe, but that's it.  

If feeling safe is what peoples do when they enter a gun free zone I'd best stop trying to invent guns that identify the target before they shoot. I may or may not then invent a non lethal bullet. I'm not sure how I would go about that. hmm. wonder if there's something else I should do. oh yeah, figure out how to not feel like I'm doomed if somebody pulls a gun while I'm in the area. (no offense to those people who do this and don't intend to hurt anybody)

Edited November 5, 2015 by Ffenix

[Ffenix]

I've been thinking about this a lot, mostly wondering at what point I'll feel like it's time to teach my kids at home. So far, it hasn't felt right.

 

At any rate, when I was in high school 20ish years ago, a lot of kids drove their trucks and jeeps to school with guns in the racks. It wasn't an issue. They were farmers and hunters. We saw guns, we were taught how to use them, and mostly how to respect them. I rarely saw my dad's guns, but when he took them out it was a sober and educational time. 

 

I believe in second amendment rights. I believe that disarming the populous only leaves us vulnerable. I don't believe that all guns are bought legally, and I don't believe for a second that the bad guys of the world would stop buying guns if it became illegal to do so. 

 

I think what we're seeing happen is a symptom of a society who has lost respect not only for firearms, but for life. Butchering babies is no big deal. Teenagers play games where the object is to kill innocent citizens and pick up hookers on the way; which brings up human trafficking, another sickeningly prevalent exhibit of the world's dismissal of the worth of souls. You think the attack on the family doesn't have consequences? I think we're already seeing them. So by the time the fatherless or neglected child has fried his brain on Grand Theft Auto 23843, or another shoot-em-up game, and they go to school empty of the love they should be getting at home, the answer seems simple, and they are numb to shooting the kids that they blame for their misery, because it's what they do for hours every day, anyway.

 

It's upsetting. It's disheartening. It makes my mother heart sick. 

this outlines most of the issues with how we get people who do these types of things IMHO. I think there's one other, but it's just out of mental reach.

[NeuroTypical]

I'm 47 so as you can guess guns are not something that are seen often in the UK.  The guns I saw were with the police, I've only ever seen one hand gun in civilian ownership which was before the ban.  The figures speak for themselves, we have strict gun controls, with low gun ownership and very few gun related deaths, compared with very high gun ownership and rocketing gun deaths in the US.  I certainly know where I would feel safer.

 

 

Hi Latter Days Guy,

 

I've been on the super fast train thing between England and France.  That said, I know very little about the difference between French and UK gun laws.  I wonder if you could comment, in the wake on the current tragedy in Paris.  Is France like the UK when it comes to attitudes like yours?  Is the current news changing any attitudes?

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34814203

Edited November 13, 2015 by NeuroTypical

[David13]

I was nervous because its so rare, I'm 47 so as you can guess guns are not something that are seen often in the UK.  The guns I saw were with the police, I've only ever seen one hand gun in civilian ownership which was before the ban.  The figures speak for themselves, we have strict gun controls, with low gun ownership and very few gun related deaths, compared with very high gun ownership and rocketing gun deaths in the US.  I certainly know where I would feel safer.

This makes interesting reading: 

 

The US, though, is the only country in the world where, following a mass shooting, the nation has responded with loosening, not tightening, gun laws. After 23 people were killed in a mass shooting in Texas in 1991, the state pushed through a law permitting the carrying of concealed weapons. Even the murder of 26 children and adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in December 2012 saw a call for fewer, not more gun law restrictions. It was reported a year later by PBS that 27 American states had passed 93 laws expanding gun rights, including measures that let people carry concealed weapons in churches and campuses, or even to use them in self-defence when drunk. Some schools even now allow their teachers to go armed.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/18/gun-violence-waco-texas-shot

 

 

It fluctuates but averages out at around 30 or so deaths, the site you linked to shows data upto 2013, according to the office of national statistics in 2012/13 there were 30 gun related deaths in UK.

 

 http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime-stats/crime-statistics/focus-on-violent-crime-and-sexual-offences--2012-13/rpt---chapter-3---weapons.html

 

Two important things to look at here that the extremely biased and prejudiced NPR would never reveal, is that almost all of the shootings and killings you are hearing about there in their "statistics" are not legally owned, registered guns.  They are illegal guns, in use by people who are PROHIBITED by federal law from owning guns.  So the truth that you miss here is that we citizens who CHOOSE to carry a gun can and should be able to do so to defend ourselves and our families from those PROHIBITED persons who have guns, because none of the governmental agencies here can nor will do that, not even by taking the guns away from those prohibiited persons.

 

Lastly, in your first paragraph, you say that you would feel most safe in a place where NO GOOD GUYS have guns and ONLY THE BAD GUYS have guns.  Does that not sound as perverse to you as it does to me?

dc

Edited November 14, 2015 by David13

[LeSellers]

I don't currently own one because I simply didn't want one in the house when I am no longer interested in target shooting or hunting. I came to a realizaiton that if a person gets shot they are shot with a gun. No gun in my house and I am reducing the chance of someone I know getting shot.

Your choice. I can't imagine anyone here insisting that you buy a weapon.

However, I can dispute your logic. You have reduced the possibility that anyone will be shot with the weapon you do not have. You have infinitely increased the possibility that you will be shot with a weapon someone else brings into your home.

I submit that it is that other weapon that is the greater threat.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

I own hundreds of tools. I wouldn't think to carry my grout float around because I know I don't need a grout float when I go to the grocery store.

If you thought that there could be a desperate widow with five small children who had diarrhea who needed her bathroom floor grouted, you might carry that float.

Admittedly, the odds of this are low to the point of insignificance. Your not having your float with you would only incur the loss of a few minutes to go and retrieve it if it ever did happen. But the odds of coming across an armed, desperate thug in a grocery store is significantly higher (and growing). The repercussions of not being armed in such a situation are far more serious.

Again, you can choose to keep'n'bear as you wish. No one, least of all I, would compel your to do so.

It's just that I find the logic behind these decisions to be from a blindered (or rose-colored) perspective. The consequences can easily be lethal.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

Nobody, except for the federal government, has the authority to ban guns. It is a constitutional right.

I'm sorry. Where do we find the power of the federal government to disarm anyone, anywhere?

I don't see it in the Document. We do read there: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

I'm one of those who believe what's written. Not only do we have the organic, untrammelable right to keep'n'bear, we have the obligation to form and train as militia (every able-bodied man from 16 [or 18] to 55 [or 60]).

Lehi

Edited November 22, 2015 by LeSellers

[LeSellers]

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.

Just how would the issue resolve itself without that second man with a gun shooting back?

In the cases we are discussing here, the first man is not going to stop until one of these things happens:

1) he runs out of ammunition (but even here, if he has a knife or other weapon, a club, he could still continue his rampage)

2) his weapons become unusable (with the same concern)

3) he is incapacitated (and, we hope dead — because dead men cannot kill you, and dead men do not require trials or treatment, either).

The only thing that will stop a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun.

Lehi

Edited November 22, 2015 by LeSellers

[LeSellers]

[M]y philosophy is that if I ever draw a gun on another human being, it will be ONLY because I believe I must kill him. I won't do it to make threats, and if I pull the trigger, it will be because I'm trying to kill the guy. (Technically, I'm trying to disable him, but the fact that I would be using a gun to disable him means I'm trying to disable him through death.)

It's important to know that if you're going to shoot someone, you'd better be in fear of your life. If that's the mandatory case, you had best shoot until the threat is eliminated. The problem is, you do not know, you cannot know, what the threat actually is. Drug addicts are notorious for being able to hurt you even after they are technically dead. Rage creates a hormone that can make almost anyone able to continue to attack after being technically dead. Is the attacker pretending to be incapacitated? I would not be able to figure that out, I doubt that too many people could, either.

An "unarmed" man is still able to attack and kill you. A man with a knife can kill you at 30 feet (9.8 m). One with a gun can kill you within one second, before you can draw your own weapon. If he has his holstered, he can take it out and shoot you within three seconds. You'd better shoot him earlier rather than later.

The old "joke" is only a joke because it presents the reality of lethal force: "Why did you shoot him nine times?" "Because I only had nine bullets."

 

DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer. I am not your lawyer.

Seek licensed legal advice before acting on anything I say here.

I must post this because the federal government thinks you too stupid to make your own choices,

and because my insurance company doesn't want you to sue me.

Lehi

Edited November 22, 2015 by LeSellers

[LeSellers]

We have below 30 gun related deaths a year nowadays.  Seems to have worked fine here.

People focus on "gun-related" deaths. Why?

Violence is not limited to guns, homicides are not all gun-connected.

And there have been some impressively bloody killings in the UK and Australia since your total bans on firearms. Guns do not kill people, people kill people, and they will use any tool at hand for the job.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

I think an important difference is that we pay for the protection we get from the professionals through our taxes so it is perfectly reasonable that we expect some form of protection from them.

SCotuS has repeatedly told us that the police have not duty or responsibility to protect us. The case that horrifies me is the one where a woman had a restraining order, her stalker killed her and her heirs sued. SCotuS ruled in favor of the police.

When seconds count, the police are only minutes away. (Well, sometimes it's hours: 911 ain't what we wish it were.)

Lehi

Edited November 22, 2015 by LeSellers

[Guest]

When seconds count, the police are only minutes away. (Well, sometimes it's hours. 911 ain't what we wish it were.)

 

This is what today's liberal movement has done to the police' ability to protect us.

[LeSellers]

The figures speak for themselves, we have strict gun controls, with low gun ownership and very few gun related deaths, compared with very high gun ownership and rocketing gun deaths in the US.

Gun-related deaths are not "rocketing" in USmerica. They are falling dramatically, except in those cities that have the most stringent (and unconstitutional) gun control ordinances.

Were it not for Chicago, Baltimore, Atlanta, and a few others, USmerica would have one of the lowest gun-related death rates in the world.

Other countries, Columbia, for example, that have strict gun control laws have far higher rates than USmerica's.

Guns do not kill people, people kill people.

Lehi

Edited November 22, 2015 by LeSellers

[LeSellers]

After watching several hours of a documentary called Burn Notice, I can state with confidence that a handgun fired at a target more than 20 feet away or behind cover will always miss. If the target is a fleeing car, the round may hit, but in all cases it will hit only the rear window or a taillight.

No, Vort, you're wrong. It's only true that the bullet misses if it's the bad guy. Good guys always hit what they're shooting at.

Lehi

[Guest]

No, Vort, you're wrong. It's only true that the bullet misses if it's the bad guy. Good guys always hit what they're shooting at.

Lehi

 

But.But.But.  James Bond even misses sometimes.  And Harley couldn't shoot straight to save his life.  He ended up hitting the Marlboro Man instead of the bad guy.

 

And let's not start talking about the red shirts.

Edited November 22, 2015 by Guest

[zil]

But.But.But.  James Bond even misses sometimes.

Only when it's convenient to the plot.