Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Paul's Here

The Good of Carrying Guns

24 posts in this topic

A Palestinian man commandeered a construction vehicle Thursday on a major road and swung a police car into the air, smashing it against a bus before bystanders opened fire on him and police shot him dead.

------------------------

Al-Rdaidah charged at the police car at an intersection off Begin Highway, a main artery traversing the city from north to south.

"We stopped at a red light and saw in the opposing lane on the left a tractor ramming into a police car with two officers inside and overturning it," another officer, Eldad Ben Nun, told Channel 2 TV. "We stopped the car, I ran over to the tractor and pulled out my gun, fired a few bullets at him (the driver) until he slumped over."

The driver sat up again, and another officer shot him three more time with an M-16 assault rifle "and the incident was over," he said.

Two taxi drivers also said they opened fire.

------------------------

In early July, three people were killed and dozens were wounded when an attacker plowed into cars and a bus. Three weeks later, another attacker rammed a bus, overturned a car and wounded five people.

In September, a third driver plowed his car into a crowd of Israeli soldiers, wounding 19.

All of the attackers were shot dead by bystanders.

Palestinian driver goes on rampage in Jerusalem

New York, on the other hand, has a different view of self-defense. (From an event in 1997)

The Palestinian teacher who went on a fatal shooting rampage atop the Empire State Building carried a note blaming the United States for using Israel as "an instrument" against his people.

---------------

The landmark building was fitted with an airport-style baggage scanner and two metal detectors yesterday. The mayor blamed the shootings on laws that allowed the man to buy a gun just weeks after he came to America.

Seven tourists were shot Sunday, one fatally, on the 86th-floor observation deck of the famous landmark, long a symbol of romance and tourism. Mr. Abu Kamal then killed himself.

That Mr. Abu Kamal -- a 69-year-old Palestinian in the country only two months -- could buy a Beretta semiautomatic handgun "is totally insane," Mayor Rudolph Giuliani said at a news conference.

-------------

"New York State, New York City have great gun control laws," Rep. McCarthy said.

N.Y. killer carried political note

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"New York State, New York City have great gun control laws," Rep. McCarthy said.

Seriously. We say you're not allowed to have guns and the bad guys go and get them anyway! Go figure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"New York State, New York City have great gun control laws," Rep. McCarthy said.

Seriously. We say you're not allowed to have guns and the bad guys go and get them anyway! Go figure.

Haha, it's like the bad guys don't even care about the law! It also occurs to me that terrorists would not be deterred by any laws -- even if it were outrightly illegal to purchase guns, they could simply break into people's houses and steal them as gang members do. After all, half of the houses in America have got at least one.

I think the Va Tech shooting is one of the best examples of why an armed citizenry is safer. It occurs to me that these shooters rarely open fire at NRA meetings and often do it at courthouses, schools, malls, and universities where no one is permitted a gun. I think the Va Tech shooting is one of the best examples of why an armed citizenry is safer. Compare that tragedy with the shooting at Appalachian School of Law in 2002:

43-year-old former student Peter Odighizuwa arrived on the campus with a handgun. Odighizuwa first discussed his academic problems with professor Dale Rubin, where he reportedly told Rubin to pray for him. Odighizuwa returned to the school around 1:00 and proceeded to the offices of Dean Anthony Sutin and Professor Thomas Blackwell, where he opened fire with a .380 ACP semi-automatic handgun. According to a county coroner, powder burns indicated that both victims were shot at point blank range. Also killed along with the two faculty members was a student, Angela Denise Dales, age 33. Three other people were wounded.

...

At the first sound of gunfire, [bridges] and fellow student Mikael Gross, unbeknownst to each other, ran to their vehicles to fetch their personal owned firearms. Gross, a police officer with the Grifton Police Department in his home state of North Carolina, retrieved a 9 mm pistol and body armor. Bridges, a county sheriff's deputy from Asheville, N.C., pulled his .357 Magnum pistol from beneath the driver's seat of his Chevrolet Tahoe. As Bridges later told the Richmond Times Dispatch, he was prepared to shoot to kill. Bridges and Gross approached Odighizuwa from different angles, with Bridges yelling at Odighizuwa to drop his gun. Odighizuwa then dropped his firearm and was subdued by several other unarmed students, including Ted Besen and Todd Ross.

This is why planning a shooting in Appalachia is a bad idea.

On a similar note, I am getting my Concealed Carry permit in a week (but it will still be illegal for me to carry it to my university, where I spend most of my time :wacko:).

*I should note that Wikipedia has references for another report which suggests the student had given up prior to seeing the armed students, as well. However, the story seems to be less well substantiated and makes less sense on the face of it -- why would a student raise his hands if no one had a gun there yet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On a similar note, I am getting my Concealed Carry permit in a week (but it will still be illegal for me to carry it to my university, where I spend most of my time :wacko:).

It's concealed - hence by definition they have no way to know if you have it and no right to force you to reveal that you do, if in fact, you are concealing it. To me, the "concealed carry" permit means "I can carry this gun whenever, wherever, and however I want" - which basically reiterates your second amendment right, which I personally do not think a "campus" has the right to abrogate.

I realize of course, in our current litigious and spaghetti law society that I'm pissing in the wind on this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David, actually the person that owns the property, the university, does have the right to tell you what is acceptable on their property. In other words, your right to carry a gun ends at my property line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
David, actually the person that owns the property, the university, does have the right to tell you what is acceptable on their property. In other words, your right to carry a gun ends at my property line.
You are right insofar as it is the (private) unversity's decision. However, it is government which prevents me from carrying my firearm even on a private campus. The government does not have the right to regulate who carries their gun on somebody else's property any more than it does to regulate whether or not you allow a gun into your home, as I'm sure you recognize.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Adam, the contradiction has been created by the government and not by you nor I. But this should not surprise us as elected government officials do not understand the nature of rights nor the nature of a moral government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't fall into the trap of treating school shooting sprees as natural or inevitable, in response to which we must debate the option of banning guns or having everyone carry them. The availability of guns is not the problem. The problem is a liberal culture that treats criminal behavior as a form of mental illness or societal dysfunction, to be "treated" rather than punished. High schools are having to screen for guns because the law does not allow them to kick out problem kids until they present a serious danger to both the students and faculty. And because juvenile records are sealed, colleges are prevented by law from knowing about behavior that would have predicted a shooting incident.

That isn't to say schools shouldn't take security precautions, but this isn't the Old West and if we find we all need to be armed to be safe, that is a giveaway that government has failed at its job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't fall into the trap of treating school shooting sprees as natural or inevitable, in response to which we must debate the option of banning guns or having everyone carry them.

They're not inevitable. But until the criminal system locks violent offenders up for good, we will continue to be in unnecessary danger -- even more so in locations where guns are banned. But I think even if the criminal sentencing were done properly, it would still be man's right to defend himself in the instance that police are too slow to respond to a threat (from a first-time criminal). That is, I still think law-abiding citizens should be able to carry a concealed weapon and I don't agree with the restricted zones such as schools and courthouses. I think that causes those areas to be more vulnerable to attack, not less. *Except in such locations like the White House, where they have sufficient manpower to stop an armed threat from entering by force. I think it makes sense in these places, but not malls, schools, courthouses, etc.

That isn't to say schools shouldn't take security precautions, but this isn't the Old West and if we find we all need to be armed to be safe, that is a giveaway that government has failed at its job.
That's the case, I'm sorry to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They're not inevitable. But until the criminal system locks violent offenders up for good, we will continue to be in unnecessary danger -- even more so in locations where guns are banned.

What do you mean here by "for good"?

That isn't to say schools shouldn't take security precautions, but this isn't the Old West and if we find we all need to be armed to be safe, that is a giveaway that government has failed at its job.
That's the case, I'm sorry to say.

What is the case? Do you carry a gun for protection? Do you believe you need to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They're not inevitable. But until the criminal system locks violent offenders up for good, we will continue to be in unnecessary danger -- even more so in locations where guns are banned.

What do you mean here by "for good"?

That isn't to say schools shouldn't take security precautions, but this isn't the Old West and if we find we all need to be armed to be safe, that is a giveaway that government has failed at its job.
That's the case, I'm sorry to say.

What is the case? Do you carry a gun for protection? Do you believe you need to?

I think what Adam means when he uses the term "good" is forever or permanently.

What reason would people carry a concealed weapon for if not for protection? And if a person is carrying a gun for safety does it not make sense that they think they need to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think what Adam means when he uses the term "good" is forever or permanently.

That's what I wanted clarification on. I'd like to know if he means any act of violence warrants a life sentence, or if he had another meaning in mind.

What reason would people carry a concealed weapon for if not for protection? And if a person is carrying a gun for safety does it not make sense that they think they need to.

I was asking him to clarify his response to my argument that if we feel we need to be armed to be safe, this is a failure of government. He said, "that's the case", so I wanted to know if in fact he feels threatened enough by crime to want to carry a gun around with him, or in what context he meant this remark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's what I wanted clarification on. I'd like to know if he means any act of violence warrants a life sentence, or if he had another meaning in mind.
That's an excellent question. I do not think that a drunken fist fight with a friend should carry a life sentence. But I was actually referring to were crimes where one individual takes something from another by force, such as attempted rape, armed robbery, etc. I do not know if these people can ever be sufficiently "cured" for release back into society. I doubt it -- but even if it were possible, we clearly do not know the requirements, based on the repeat offender rates. This study suggests that some 56% of violent felonious acts are committed by repeat offenders from 1990 to 2002. Another study in 1991 stated that about one quarter of rapes were committed by those on parole or probation. Until these seriously violent and disturbed individuals stay in prison, our streets will be much less safe. I hate to think of why judges risk the lives of innocents for these creatures.
What is the case? Do you carry a gun for protection? Do you believe you need to?
I do in certain circumstances. Two friends of mine were held at gunpoint last year in Cincinnati and my city, Dayton, is quite dangerous as well. I don't know if it would do me any good in a hold-up, but it would give me some option besides hoping for the mercy of a thug in such a situation. In a circumstance such as I want to go to the movies at night or out to eat, especially if I have to park far from where I'm going, I will carry it. Since I just got my license a couple of days ago, I'm not sure exactly how much I will use it. But yes, I plan on carrying it only when I may need it -- I only won't take it everywhere because it is slightly less comfortable. My comment about the government failing its duty was due to the recidivism rates I talked about above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think what Adam means when he uses the term "good" is forever or permanently.

That's what I wanted clarification on. I'd like to know if he means any act of violence warrants a life sentence, or if he had another meaning in mind.

What reason would people carry a concealed weapon for if not for protection? And if a person is carrying a gun for safety does it not make sense that they think they need to.

I was asking him to clarify his response to my argument that if we feel we need to be armed to be safe, this is a failure of government. He said, "that's the case", so I wanted to know if in fact he feels threatened enough by crime to want to carry a gun around with him, or in what context he meant this remark.

And I thought Adam made it clear in post #9 when he stated "violent offenders." Violent is define as marked by extreme force. A simple pick-pocket and other similar offenses would not be considered as "violent."

I also thought that Adam made it clear in his earlier post that he thinks that, at least where he lives, that he is threatened enough by criminals to warrant the wearing of a concealed weapon for his own safety.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's an excellent question. I do not think that a drunken fist fight with a friend should carry a life sentence. But I was actually referring to were crimes where one individual takes something from another by force, such as attempted rape, armed robbery, etc. I do not know if these people can ever be sufficiently "cured" for release back into society. I doubt it -- but even if it were possible, we clearly do not know the requirements, based on the repeat offender rates. This study suggests that some 56% of violent felonious acts are committed by repeat offenders from 1990 to 2002. Another study in 1991 stated that about one quarter of rapes were committed by those on parole or probation. Until these seriously violent and disturbed individuals stay in prison, our streets will be much less safe. I hate to think of why judges risk the lives of innocents for these creatures.

This happens in large part because criminal psychologists have been corrupted by the notion of criminals as victims, and fail to accurately advise judges as to the state of mind of offenders. And this process begins when criminals are young; parents are often wrongfully accused of bad parenting if their child is a delinquent, evading the child's choices to become a criminal and giving him a tool to deflect attention from his actions throughout his lifetime (by blaming upbringing, society etc.). I don't disagree with tough sentencing, but I think if we had a solid psychological model of the criminal mind we could actually release criminals once they've done their punishment without feeling threatened by them. I don't even mean a revolution in therapy, but simply an ability to distinguish the rehabilitated from the actors. The criminal justice system should be retributive. This means once an offender has received a punishment appropriate to their crime, they should be evaluated to determine if they can be released. Do away with the whole parole system in my opinion, and simply reduce sentences. Release should be contingent on a passed psychological test, but obviously those tests aren't worth a damn at the moment (except perhaps if performed by Stanton Samenow ;)).

After the implementation of 3 strike laws, mandatory sentences and reduced ages at which offenders are treated by the juvenile system, we saw a large decrease in crime nationwide. But I think this is a bit like security in schools (which has also reduced crime); it's a justified reaction, but one that would not be necessary if not for the socialist corruption in this country that escalated criminal behavior for decades. That's what I meant by my previous post. I am 100% for gun rights, but having everyone carry around guns is not a solution to the basic problem.

I do in certain circumstances. Two friends of mine were held at gunpoint last year in Cincinnati and my city, Dayton, is quite dangerous as well. I don't know if it would do me any good in a hold-up, but it would give me some option besides hoping for the mercy of a thug in such a situation. In a circumstance such as I want to go to the movies at night or out to eat, especially if I have to park far from where I'm going, I will carry it. Since I just got my license a couple of days ago, I'm not sure exactly how much I will use it. But yes, I plan on carrying it only when I may need it -- I only won't take it everywhere because it is slightly less comfortable.

This was just a personal curiosity, I was wondering what your concern was based on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And I thought Adam made it clear in post #9 when he stated "violent offenders." Violent is define as marked by extreme force. A simple pick-pocket and other similar offenses would not be considered as "violent."

I also thought that Adam made it clear in his earlier post that he thinks that, at least where he lives, that he is threatened enough by criminals to warrant the wearing of a concealed weapon for his own safety.

I asked the questions because the answers were not clear to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
David, actually the person that owns the property, the university, does have the right to tell you what is acceptable on their property. In other words, your right to carry a gun ends at my property line.

Agreed - except in the case of so-called "public property". And you are correct with regard to a privately owned University. I should have been clear about that point, I was speaking with regard to public places.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And I thought Adam made it clear in post #9 when he stated "violent offenders." Violent is define as marked by extreme force. A simple pick-pocket and other similar offenses would not be considered as "violent."

I also thought that Adam made it clear in his earlier post that he thinks that, at least where he lives, that he is threatened enough by criminals to warrant the wearing of a concealed weapon for his own safety.

I asked the questions because the answers were not clear to me.

I understand that it was not clear to you. But I thought Adam made himself clear and hence why I responded to your query.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I understand that it was not clear to you. But I thought Adam made himself clear and hence why I responded to your query.

I understand that it was clear to you, which is why I clarified that it was not clear to me. We could do this all day! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
David, actually the person that owns the property, the university, does have the right to tell you what is acceptable on their property. In other words, your right to carry a gun ends at my property line.

Ray,

You raise a very interesting issue here.

The policies that many employers have adpoted (especially in states that have shall-issue concealed carry licenses) the formula "your right to carry a gun ends at my property line." They search private automobiles to find guns (in many cases using the local police to do it) and to fire any employee who has one in his car.

One's right to bear arms does not end at someone else's property line. It does not end anywhere (except where government-supervised special security zone exists, e.g., past the metal detectors in the airport or inside a prison).

What happens at the proprety line is that the right of the property owner to control the use of his land and his right to not associated with gun carrying people comes into play.

There are borderline cases here. The case of employers searching employee's vehicles for the purpose of imposing a pacifist anti-gun agenda is one of them. One's motor vehicle is own's own private property. Enclosing things within (or attaching things to) your car is your property right. This right does not end when you enter someone else's street or parking lot.

The property right of that the owner of a street or a parking lot does not extend to the contents of you motor vehicle. The extent of his right is to set conditions of the use of his property and violations can be enforce only two ways:

1. ejection for tresspassing (with or without the help of the police -- with the possibility of criminal prosecution reserved only for eggregious cases of tresspass)

2. refusal to associate with some one who will not follow the conditions of use (e.g., firing employees who violate a no-gun-possession policy)

What the owner of a parking lot cannot do is to search your car without your consent. Doing so is the felony crime of burglary. Enlisting the police to do the searches does not legalize the burglary, it merely componds it by adding to it another crime: the blatant violation of the 2nd and 4th Amendment rights of those who have parked their cars in the parking lot.

The National Rifle Association is currently pursuing legal action and seeking legal protections against employer searches of private automobiles. If you look into what the NRA is doing on this issue; however, they've got themselves entanged in the anti-rights welfare-state view that employees own their jobs and cannot be fired without just cause. In several states the NRA has drafted laws that would prohibit employers from firing employees who are caught with guns at a gun-ban facility. It is obviously every employer's right to fire anyone for any reason...including evil reasons like because they're black or because they carry guns.

---------------------------------------------

As a (one-time) instructor and someone who maintains a little bit of training in this area, I would strongly encourage anyone on this list who legally carries a handgun for self-defense (or, who feels compelled to illegally carry a handgun for legitiamte self-defense) to get some combat handgun training and to periodically practice the moves at home (with a visually-verified UNLOADED gun).

Marksmanship training is 10% dry fire/90% live fire (it can be very hard to learn). Combat training is 90% dry fire/10% live fire...plus force-on-force training (e.g., with paintball guns)...(It is very easy to learn, easier than basketball)

Most CCW holders don't practice drawing their guns and reholstering -- let alone practice engaging targets quickly, shooting on the move, seeking cover, shooting moving targets, changing magazines, clearing jams, etc.

(For a guide on the proper movements for combat handgun, I strongly recommend the books of Gabe Suarez. But I even more strongly recommend taking at least one class from a reputable teacher. In an era in which 40 states have shall-issue concealed carry permits, these kinds of classes hvae been sprouting up everywhere.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jack,

I disagree with your assessement. The right to bear arms does not mean a person has the right to carry a weapon anyplace they want. The right to bear arms stems from one's right to their life and hence the defense of that life in emergency situations where a government official/the police are not able to respond in time to provide protection. So your right to bear arms does end at my property line, but your right to protect your life never ends at anyone's property line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are borderline cases here. The case of employers searching employee's vehicles for the purpose of imposing a pacifist anti-gun agenda is one of them. One's motor vehicle is own's own private property. Enclosing things within (or attaching things to) your car is your property right. This right does not end when you enter someone else's street or parking lot.

Depending on how you mean this, I may disagree. I'd agree that the parking lot owner does not have the right to break into a vehicle and look for weapons. However, he does have the right to tell the owner of the vehicle that he must leave if he does not consent to a search. Just as building owners may staff the entrance with metal detectors and security personnel to search bags. You can choose not to consent, but if you do so you forfeit permission to remain on the premises.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jack,

I disagree with your assessement. The right to bear arms does not mean a person has the right to carry a weapon anyplace they want. The right to bear arms stems from one's right to their life and hence the defense of that life in emergency situations where a government official/the police are not able to respond in time to provide protection. So your right to bear arms does end at my property line, but your right to protect your life never ends at anyone's property line.

I understand what your saying here, Ray, but I don't think the formulation is precise enough. Rights don't end anywhere. Nor are rights restricted. What "ends at my property line" is your access to it: if you agree to the conditions that I set, you may enter. If I don't want guns on my property, you still have a right to your guns, you just don't have a right to access my property. I would formulate the principle as you have a right to bear arms anyplace you have a right to enter. One's formulation should not leave open the possible interpretation that rights somehow are in conflict.

Likewise, your life could be forfeit if I tell you that trespassers will be shot on sight. So you most likely would not enter my property (or my house). And, if you did trespass (or break into my house), you would not have the right to shoot me on my property on the assumption that you were defending yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0