Guns. Packing Heat in the Parks : ATOM 0.3

Guns. Packing Heat in the Parks

The Coburn amendment is another attempt by the gun lobby to extend laissez-faire gun rights to college campuses, churches and workplaces even as the nation suffers firearm fatalities and rampages that take 30,000 lives a year.

HMTKSteve @ 2/22/2008 2:53:16 PM

I'm just waiting for a clever psychopath to devise a way to murder a whole bunch of people with something no one would suspect of being a weapon. A phone book perhaps?

How would the media spin it? Phone book nut kills twelve with yellow pages...

lynxears @ 2/21/2008 9:06:02 PM

« dollyllama : Hmm, except for the people who keep "snapping" like the latest guy in the NIU case. He legally purchased his guns and I doubt he cared whether anyone else had a gun. These instances are becoming more popular as a way to gain notariety. I think it's a really bad idea. Especially since most rapes don't happen to "families camping in National Parks". I mean that's just grasping at straws.

I'm with you dolly, especially since most weapons used in crimes are bought legally and then sold (illegally) to the people who then perpetrate the crimes.

DoggySpew @ 2/21/2008 4:13:28 PM

It is not the matter of wether or not guns are allowed to be carried by people, but wether or not criminal get weapons.
The notion that "give everyone a gun" helps lower crime is idiotic, considering that it doesn't matter wether good guys have the guns, but the bad guys have the guns.

Take away the guns from criminal and psycho's, then crime will be reduced.
But even then it is more complicated. Trying to keep weapons from criminals is hard and pretty much impossible, because of the sheer ease of weapon distribution.
That is why it is so hard for especially in a country where guns are actually produced, to keep the guns away from criminals.Other countries who do not produce weapons, and have tight import restrictions for weapons do tend to have less of that problem.

Furthermore, the most effective way to lower crime, is to combat the underlying reasons of crime itself; Poverty, low education, low health standards, unemployment etcetera...
Eliminating crime intire is impossible, but it will be reduced if these problems are reduced.

gammerus @ 2/21/2008 2:09:54 PM

« dollyllama : Here it is.

thank you

ReBoot @ 2/21/2008 9:39:01 AM

Most murders will take place whether guns are available or not. Take away the guns, and the number of stabbings will go up. I think a society that is prepared and equipped to defend itself is generally a safer one.

mobase @ 2/21/2008 8:12:52 AM

The police aren't personal bodyguards and most of the time, they'll show up after everything's done. Doesn't really help the murder victim.

Seconded. One calls the police after the fact, and it will be far too late by then. I don't like the idea of waiting for the local constabulary to show up and sort out who's good and who's bad amidst the chaos and carnage.

These shooters can be equated to sharks- The only thing a shark respects is a A) a bigger shark- Or- B)more sharks than he can bite.

1thirteen3 @ 2/21/2008 1:12:41 AM

« dollyllama : So it was public knowledge that there was an armed security guard there but the gunman still came and shot people. And the gunman obtained his gun legally?

Cite your sources please.

Let me uh repeat something I said:

If a gunman is not going to obey the law to not murder, what makes anyone think that he's going to obey the law to not have a gun?

Matoogs @ 2/21/2008 12:47:31 AM

« softdev : Universities should strict policies when it comes to deadly firearms...

Lol, is this forum spam that's actually relating to the subject? Or just a fun new way of posting?

Well, I must say I disagree...

softdev @ 2/21/2008 12:27:09 AM

I'm a dirty spammer. Downvote me. I love being downvoted!

Matoogs @ 2/20/2008 11:19:10 PM

« dollyllama : From the department of Justice, FBI.

I'm afraid we've gone on such a tangent you forget why I linked to the statistics in the first place.

And there's just no historical precedence for people who normally carry concealed weapons "snapping" and going on shooting sprees. Nearly all killing sprees involve a person buying/carrying weapons specifically because they were planning on murder. Don't believe me? Check for yourself. Think how many of those could have been prevented if the victims were armed.

My argument is that the is that spree killings in general are not spur of the moment. The notion of a person "snapping" and having their a shooting spree facilitated by the fact that they happened to be carrying a gun has no basis in history. Allowing concealed weapon carry in public places does not represent a danger to society. Quite the opposite, actually.

dollyllama @ 2/20/2008 10:42:34 PM

« fugazi : It is a tough situation...but...

We need the guns because we will one day have the police and the military turned against us...

Even I'm not that paranoid. ;)

dollyllama @ 2/20/2008 10:42:14 PM

« Matoogs :

From the department of Justice, FBI.

fugazi @ 2/20/2008 10:36:55 PM

It is a tough situation...but...

We need the guns because we will one day have the police and the military turned against us...

Matoogs @ 2/20/2008 10:36:23 PM

« dollyllama : They aren't legitimate. Teens posting a site with made up stats. Prove the stats. I gave a link to my sources, they're verified.

Matoogs :
List of massacres
List of school related attacks
Category:Spree shootings

dollyllama @ 2/20/2008 10:21:00 PM

« Matoogs : It's obviously just stupid teenagers doing stuff for shock value. I see no bias that would skew the statistics to be pro-gun.

I gave you legitimate sources, now how about you look them over and address the point I raised in my original post?

They aren't legitimate. Teens posting a site with made up stats. Prove the stats. I gave a link to my sources, they're verified.

Matoogs @ 2/20/2008 10:16:34 PM

« dollyllama : Maybe it was the merchandise:

Not a pop up, this is directly related to the site; the same site that claims "This is not a society for Spree Killings"

Uh, I call BULLs**t.

It's obviously just stupid teenagers doing stuff for shock value. I see no bias that would skew the statistics to be pro-gun.

I gave you legitimate sources, now how about you look them over and address the point I raised in my original post?

dollyllama @ 2/20/2008 9:53:55 PM

Maybe it was the merchandise:

Not a pop up, this is directly related to the site; the same site that claims "This is not a society for Spree Killings"

Uh, I call BULLs**t.

Matoogs @ 2/20/2008 9:41:25 PM

« dollyllama : Um, you're linking to a pro-gun website. How can I trust that? Link to something non-bias and we'll talk.

Um, that is not a pro-gun website. Where do you get that idea? I thoroughly looked through each page and found nothing relating to a position on guns.

I chose that page because I couldn't find a more official list and it links every stat to a corresponding Wikipedia page. Unfortunately Wikipedia doesn't have an equivalent list, but here's a few that are close:

List of massacres
List of school related attacks
Category:Spree shootings

digitalgimpling @ 2/20/2008 9:33:30 PM

I think everyone would be REQUIRED to carry a gun.

I'd certainly be less likely to brandish a weapon if i knew everyone else around me had one, too.

dollyllama @ 2/20/2008 9:03:26 PM

« Matoogs : To think people who go on shooting sprees would have any respect for a non-actively enforced law is just naive.

And there's just no historical precedence for people who normally carry concealed weapons "snapping" and going on shooting sprees. Nearly all killing sprees involve a person buying/carrying weapons specifically because they were planning on murder. Don't believe me? Check for yourself. Think how many of those could have been prevented if the victims were armed.

Um, you're linking to a pro-gun website. How can I trust that? Link to something non-bias and we'll talk.

dollyllama @ 2/20/2008 9:02:01 PM

« gammerus : Linky please.

Here it is.

dollyllama @ 2/20/2008 9:00:04 PM

« 1thirteen3 : Here's something to think about.

Earlier this year, in Colorado (actually in December) there was a shooting at a church in Denver. Another church (in Colorado Springs) heard the news and brought in a security guard armed with a gun.

After church ended, a gunman came in and started shooting people in the church. The security guard shot down the man almost immediately.

Had the security guard not been allowed a gun, the church would have had many, many deaths. Thankfully it was limited to 5.

If a gunman is not going to obey the law to not murder, what makes anyone think that he's going to obey the law to not have a gun?

So it was public knowledge that there was an armed security guard there but the gunman still came and shot people. And the gunman obtained his gun legally?

Cite your sources please.

1thirteen3 @ 2/20/2008 7:38:25 PM

Here's something to think about.

Earlier this year, in Colorado (actually in December) there was a shooting at a church in Denver. Another church (in Colorado Springs) heard the news and brought in a security guard armed with a gun.

After church ended, a gunman came in and started shooting people in the church. The security guard shot down the man almost immediately.

Had the security guard not been allowed a gun, the church would have had many, many deaths. Thankfully it was limited to 5.

If a gunman is not going to obey the law to not murder, what makes anyone think that he's going to obey the law to not have a gun?

Willster09 @ 2/20/2008 7:25:00 PM

I kind of agree with Matoogs on this however I do believe that certain States such as mine, have laws that make it to easy to get a concealed weapon permit. Not that I'm against it, but I do believe there is a time and place for it. Just the other day at lunch I found it uncomfortable that the man sitting in the booth beside us had his side arm on, He was with his wife and two small children, in a local small town restaurant. I could maybe get it if we were in a big city but, no.

gammerus @ 2/20/2008 7:19:38 PM

« dollyllama : A fully armed society is the furthest thing from a safe society. Think about the number of people on prozac or xanax or lithium.

To think putting a gun in most people's hands will make us safer is foolhardy. Go look at the gun law/gun death map I posted, the lower the gun laws, the higher the gun possession, almost without fail equals the higher instances of death by gun. Hardly coincidence.

Linky please.

Matoogs @ 2/20/2008 6:34:52 PM

To think people who go on shooting sprees would have any respect for a non-actively enforced law is just naive.

And there's just no historical precedence for people who normally carry concealed weapons "snapping" and going on shooting sprees. Nearly all killing sprees involve a person buying/carrying weapons specifically because they were planning on murder. Don't believe me? Check for yourself. Think how many of those could have been prevented if the victims were armed.

dollyllama @ 2/20/2008 4:58:32 PM

« ArchAngel : There was a case of a shooting at a university I believe.

Gunman came in. No deaths. Minor casualties. He was stopped by two students with guns.

Not saying that a fully armed society is a perfectly safe society, but the ability to defend oneself does have to play in the role.

The police aren't personal bodyguards and most of the time, they'll show up after everything's done. Doesn't really help the murder victim.

A fully armed society is the furthest thing from a safe society. Think about the number of people on prozac or xanax or lithium.

To think putting a gun in most people's hands will make us safer is foolhardy. Go look at the gun law/gun death map I posted, the lower the gun laws, the higher the gun possession, almost without fail equals the higher instances of death by gun. Hardly coincidence.

ArchAngel @ 2/20/2008 3:51:17 PM

There was a case of a shooting at a university I believe.

Gunman came in. No deaths. Minor casualties. He was stopped by two students with guns.

Not saying that a fully armed society is a perfectly safe society, but the ability to defend oneself does have to play in the role.

The police aren't personal bodyguards and most of the time, they'll show up after everything's done. Doesn't really help the murder victim.

DoggySpew @ 2/20/2008 3:20:35 PM

« HMTKSteve : If guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns.

It's kind of like the old saying, "a lock only keeps an honest man honest." If a criminal knows the populace is unarmed he will be more likely to commit a crime than if he thinks the people are armed.

It is not as simple as that.

dollyllama @ 2/20/2008 3:08:52 PM

« gammerus : That isn't a bad idea considering how many shootings we have had recently. I am not big on guns, but I do believe people would be less likely to go on a shooting spree if they knew other people in the building had guns too.

Edit: you beat me to it HMTKSteve

Hmm, except for the people who keep "snapping" like the latest guy in the NIU case. He legally purchased his guns and I doubt he cared whether anyone else had a gun. These instances are becoming more popular as a way to gain notariety. I think it's a really bad idea. Especially since most rapes don't happen to "families camping in National Parks". I mean that's just grasping at straws.

gammerus @ 2/20/2008 2:48:25 PM

That isn't a bad idea considering how many shootings we have had recently. I am not big on guns, but I do believe people would be less likely to go on a shooting spree if they knew other people in the building had guns too.

Edit: you beat me to it HMTKSteve

HMTKSteve @ 2/20/2008 2:47:57 PM

If guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns.

It's kind of like the old saying, "a lock only keeps an honest man honest." If a criminal knows the populace is unarmed he will be more likely to commit a crime than if he thinks the people are armed.

dollyllama @ 2/20/2008 2:26:50 PM

Unbelievable. Just unbelievable.