National Rifle Association Calls For Armed Guards In U S Schools

[FritsSikkink]

[There have been numerous cases of citizens with legal handguns who stopped a potential gun massacre by stopping the crazed individual. The liberal press never puts any of these incidents in their headlines so most people never read about them.

Background static. There have also been cases of students and tourists being murdered by overzealous gun owners who think everyone is out to rob them.

And there's George Zimmerman.

Alright here are just a few examples of potential massacres that were stopped because of an armed citizen.

– Mayan Palace Theater, San Antonio, Texas, this week: Jesus Manuel Garcia shoots at a movie theater, a police car and bystanders from the nearby China Garden restaurant; as he enters the movie theater, guns blazing, an armed off-duty cop shoots Garcia four times, stopping the attack. Total dead: Zero.

– Winnemucca, Nev., 2008: Ernesto Villagomez opens fire in a crowded restaurant; concealed-carry permit-holder shoots him dead. Total dead: Two

– Appalachian School of Law, 2002: Crazed immigrant shoots the dean and a professor, then begins shooting students; as he goes for more ammunition, two armed students point their guns at him, allowing a third to tackle him. Total dead: Three.

– Santee, Calif., 2001: Student begins shooting his classmates — as well as the “trained campus supervisor”; an off-duty cop who happened to be bringing his daughter to school that day points his gun at the shooter, holding him until more police arrive. Total dead: Two.

– Pearl High School, Mississippi, 1997: After shooting several people at his high school, student heads for the junior high school; assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieves a .45 pistol from his car and points it at the gunman’s head, ending the murder spree. Total dead: Two.

– Edinboro, Pa., 1998: A student shoots up a junior high school dance being held at a restaurant; restaurant owner pulls out his shotgun and stops the gunman. Total dead: One.

And the most recent which was virtually unreported. There are some interesting statistics and reports right at the end of the article also

http://www.google.co...355534169,d.bmk

God knows how many saved by these armed individuals.

And have a look how many people have been killed by guns since Newtown

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_newtown_sandy_hook_shooting.html

[gl555]

[There have been numerous cases of citizens with legal handguns who stopped a potential gun massacre by stopping the crazed individual. The liberal press never puts any of these incidents in their headlines so most people never read about them.

Background static. There have also been cases of students and tourists being murdered by overzealous gun owners who think everyone is out to rob them.

And there's George Zimmerman.

Alright here are just a few examples of potential massacres that were stopped because of an armed citizen.

– Mayan Palace Theater, San Antonio, Texas, this week: Jesus Manuel Garcia shoots at a movie theater, a police car and bystanders from the nearby China Garden restaurant; as he enters the movie theater, guns blazing, an armed off-duty cop shoots Garcia four times, stopping the attack. Total dead: Zero.

– Winnemucca, Nev., 2008: Ernesto Villagomez opens fire in a crowded restaurant; concealed-carry permit-holder shoots him dead. Total dead: Two

– Appalachian School of Law, 2002: Crazed immigrant shoots the dean and a professor, then begins shooting students; as he goes for more ammunition, two armed students point their guns at him, allowing a third to tackle him. Total dead: Three.

– Santee, Calif., 2001: Student begins shooting his classmates — as well as the “trained campus supervisor”; an off-duty cop who happened to be bringing his daughter to school that day points his gun at the shooter, holding him until more police arrive. Total dead: Two.

– Pearl High School, Mississippi, 1997: After shooting several people at his high school, student heads for the junior high school; assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieves a .45 pistol from his car and points it at the gunman’s head, ending the murder spree. Total dead: Two.

– Edinboro, Pa., 1998: A student shoots up a junior high school dance being held at a restaurant; restaurant owner pulls out his shotgun and stops the gunman. Total dead: One.

And the most recent which was virtually unreported. There are some interesting statistics and reports right at the end of the article also

http://www.google.co...355534169,d.bmk

God knows how many saved by these armed individuals.

And have a look how many people have been killed by guns since Newtown

http://www.slate.com...k_shooting.html

300 million guns out there. What do you expect?

The article doesn't show how many people saved by people using their guns legally.

[FritsSikkink]

300 million guns out there. What do you expect?

That is why you should not give everybody a gun. Less guns, less dead people.

[gl555]

300 million guns out there. What do you expect?

That is why you should not give everybody a gun. Less guns, less dead people.

There are already 300 million guns out there in America. That's almost 1 gun for 'everybody'. So the less guns, less dead people argument doesn't hold water.

[FritsSikkink]

300 million guns out there. What do you expect?

That is why you should not give everybody a gun. Less guns, less dead people.

There are already 300 million guns out there in America. That's almost 1 gun for 'everybody'. So the less guns, less dead people argument doesn't hold water.

Ok sell more to everybody, that will improve things.

[gl555]

300 million guns out there. What do you expect?

That is why you should not give everybody a gun. Less guns, less dead people.

There are already 300 million guns out there in America. That's almost 1 gun for 'everybody'. So the less guns, less dead people argument doesn't hold water.

Ok sell more to everybody, that will improve things.

Yes it will. The criminals already have easy access to 300 million guns. Making it harder for them to buy guns legally isn't going to stop them since they can get an illegal one easily. If the criminals can get a gun then why law abiding citizens be prevented from getting a legal firearm to protect themselves.

The simpleness of the anti gun people is amusing at times. 'Less guns, less deaths', Yet the gun banning in Chicago which was recently overturned has shown otherwise. Ban guns, less gun crimes and crime right? No, it was the exact opposite there. And when the supreme court overturned that law a couple of years back, violent crime and firearm related crimes actually dropped. That sort of pokes holes in the simple minded anti gun theory.

[beechguy]

300 million guns out there. What do you expect?

That is why you should not give everybody a gun. Less guns, less dead people.

I thought that was the point of banning guns in Chcago, ask the 49 people that got shot on St. Patrick's day how well that worked for them.

[FritsSikkink]

300 million guns out there. What do you expect?

That is why you should not give everybody a gun. Less guns, less dead people.

I thought that was the point of banning guns in Chcago, ask the 49 people that got shot on St. Patrick's day how well that worked for them.

It works fine in a lot of other countries. If you all want more guns and more dead people in the US then: up to you and see if it gets better.

[gl555]

300 million guns out there. What do you expect?

That is why you should not give everybody a gun. Less guns, less dead people.

I thought that was the point of banning guns in Chcago, ask the 49 people that got shot on St. Patrick's day how well that worked for them.

It works fine in a lot of other countries. If you all want more guns and more dead people in the US then: up to you and see if it gets better.

It works fine in other countries because they don't already have 300 million guns in circulation in the first place!

You won't see a difference posting draconian gun laws on newer guns until you actually do something to get rid of the 300 million guns already there.

[Mosha]

The crazed gunmen are the ones who don't lock them up

"Then there are the stories of children killed in gun accidents and suicides. In 2010, the most recent year for which detailed Centers for Disease Control data is available, 129 people between the ages of 1 and 19 died in gun accidents. Another 749 took their own lives using a firearm, most of which were owned by a parent."

[maidu]

A 35-year-old man was shot to death in

Wilkinsburg, Pennsylvania in September when he took a break from a game

of dominoes on a second-floor balcony around 11 p.m. and urinated

over the rail. Unfortunately, an unidentified man was walking

below. He yelled, "Yo! Yo!" and fired several gunshots, killing the

urinator. [National Post, 11-20-2012] [Pittsburgh Tribune-Review,

9-19-2012] from News of the Weird

• 
  

So now we get news of the world on every murder in the US? Give it a break.

The story is about just one of tens of thousands of shooting deaths. It goes to show how, if so many people are in possession of guns, then shootings become more likely (even casual). There is no panacea, no 'silver bullet' solution (pun intended). I'll re-word a comparison I posted earlier. Suppose there are two identical houses, each housing 100 rowdie teen-agers. One house has one (spray) can of mace. The other house has 2,000 cans of mace, located all over. Which house will have more incidents of mace being sprayed if (for example) there are arguments and/or emotional outburts?

In other words, if there are a plethora of guns, there will be an increased incidence of guns being used. More of a factor, is the psychology of gun owners/weilders. That's a more convoluted topic. Of the thousands of Americans I've known over a half century, I can say that gun owners generally have some different perspective on life than non-gun owners. Of course, it's not a black and white topic, but there are discernable differences. I can make a list, if you'd like.

[chuckd]

...."I can make a list, if you'd like."

Don't bother.

[gl555]

A 35-year-old man was shot to death in

Wilkinsburg, Pennsylvania in September when he took a break from a game

of dominoes on a second-floor balcony around 11 p.m. and urinated

over the rail. Unfortunately, an unidentified man was walking

below. He yelled, "Yo! Yo!" and fired several gunshots, killing the

urinator. [National Post, 11-20-2012] [Pittsburgh Tribune-Review,

9-19-2012] from News of the Weird

• 
  

So now we get news of the world on every murder in the US? Give it a break.

The story is about just one of tens of thousands of shooting deaths. It goes to show how, if so many people are in possession of guns, then shootings become more likely (even casual). There is no panacea, no 'silver bullet' solution (pun intended). I'll re-word a comparison I posted earlier. Suppose there are two identical houses, each housing 100 rowdie teen-agers. One house has one (spray) can of mace. The other house has 2,000 cans of mace, located all over. Which house will have more incidents of mace being sprayed if (for example) there are arguments and/or emotional outburts?

In other words, if there are a plethora of guns, there will be an increased incidence of guns being used. More of a factor, is the psychology of gun owners/weilders. That's a more convoluted topic. Of the thousands of Americans I've known over a half century, I can say that gun owners generally have some different perspective on life than non-gun owners. Of course, it's not a black and white topic, but there are discernable differences. I can make a list, if you'd like.

IF there a plethora of guns? There are already 300 million guns out there! The market is already saturated with guns, both legal and illegal. If the criminals and crazies out there have a gun already or can get an illegal one easily, then why should they make it harder for law abiding citizens to get one legally to defend themselves?

[HeijoshinCool]

Two news snippets I recall, when I resided in Wash D.C.

>>> while leaving a party of young folks, a black girl was shoved aside while leaving a party. She said, "that's no way to treat a lady." The guy said, "you no lady," pulled out a gun and shot her dead.

>>> In an elevator, a guy said something to another guy who he didn't know, and used the common tag, 'brother.' The other guy said, "I'm not your brother," and pulled out a pistol and shot the other guy dead.

Just two examples of tens of thousands of people shot for no reason. Two lives snuffed out in a second. I realize banning guns won't have much of an effect. It's psychology that's the problem. Sickos are out there. People have to be wily and lucky to stay alive. It probably doesn't hurt to mix with decent people, and those who aren't in to drugs (including the most harmful drug of all: alcohol) or people who aren't religious fanatics (or fanatics of other peripheral belief systems).

And that, by the way, in a city (D.C.) where handguns have been "strictly regulated" for many a year!

[F430murci]

A 35-year-old man was shot to death in

Wilkinsburg, Pennsylvania in September when he took a break from a game

of dominoes on a second-floor balcony around 11 p.m. and urinated

over the rail. Unfortunately, an unidentified man was walking

below. He yelled, "Yo! Yo!" and fired several gunshots, killing the

urinator. [National Post, 11-20-2012] [Pittsburgh Tribune-Review,

9-19-2012] from News of the Weird

• 
  

So now we get news of the world on every murder in the US? Give it a break.

The story is about just one of tens of thousands of shooting deaths. It goes to show how, if so many people are in possession of guns, then shootings become more likely (even casual). There is no panacea, no 'silver bullet' solution (pun intended). I'll re-word a comparison I posted earlier. Suppose there are two identical houses, each housing 100 rowdie teen-agers. One house has one (spray) can of mace. The other house has 2,000 cans of mace, located all over. Which house will have more incidents of mace being sprayed if (for example) there are arguments and/or emotional outburts?

In other words, if there are a plethora of guns, there will be an increased incidence of guns being used. More of a factor, is the psychology of gun owners/weilders. That's a more convoluted topic. Of the thousands of Americans I've known over a half century, I can say that gun owners generally have some different perspective on life than non-gun owners. Of course, it's not a black and white topic, but there are discernable differences. I can make a list, if you'd like.

IF there a plethora of guns? There are already 300 million guns out there! The market is already saturated with guns, both legal and illegal. If the criminals and crazies out there have a gun already or can get an illegal one easily, then why should they make it harder for law abiding citizens to get one legally to defend themselves?

It's NRA policies putting assault weapons in the hands of felons.

Easy solutions, mandatory background checks on all purchases including those weapons sold by private sellers at gun shows. Mandatory registration, similar to class III with similar penalties for selling or transfer in violation of registration and mandatory background check.

Penalties with some teeth comparable to class III penalties including those in possession of unregistered firearms.

Stop sale of .223, .570, 7.62 NATO rounds or any ammo for assault weapons. Van assault weapons, sale or transfer of assault weapons and same with large capacity clip and make those weapons grandfathered in subject to Class III federal registration.

Thus would allow non felons, non domestic abusers and etc to still have weapons and deter selling to those that do nit qualify, close gun show loop hole and prevent or strongly deter straw purchasers.

Only a felon, domestic abuser, or someone losing money from gun sales would oppose the above.

[F430murci]

Two news snippets I recall, when I resided in Wash D.C.

>>> while leaving a party of young folks, a black girl was shoved aside while leaving a party. She said, "that's no way to treat a lady." The guy said, "you no lady," pulled out a gun and shot her dead.

>>> In an elevator, a guy said something to another guy who he didn't know, and used the common tag, 'brother.' The other guy said, "I'm not your brother," and pulled out a pistol and shot the other guy dead.

Just two examples of tens of thousands of people shot for no reason. Two lives snuffed out in a second. I realize banning guns won't have much of an effect. It's psychology that's the problem. Sickos are out there. People have to be wily and lucky to stay alive. It probably doesn't hurt to mix with decent people, and those who aren't in to drugs (including the most harmful drug of all: alcohol) or people who aren't religious fanatics (or fanatics of other peripheral belief systems).

And that, by the way, in a city (D.C.) where handguns have been "strictly regulated" for many a year!

Guns are not strictly regulated. They can buy from private sellers from gun shows, private individuals off street, and do not have to register or pass background checks. They can then carry or take into any state or province they wish.

The problem with DC is one can buy weapons legally sold in another state from private individual and carry it in. Uniform federal registration of dealer and private sales in all states would make black market sales a more difficult proposition and make prices considerably higher for black market purchases.

[HeijoshinCool]

Two news snippets I recall, when I resided in Wash D.C.

>>> while leaving a party of young folks, a black girl was shoved aside while leaving a party. She said, "that's no way to treat a lady." The guy said, "you no lady," pulled out a gun and shot her dead.

>>> In an elevator, a guy said something to another guy who he didn't know, and used the common tag, 'brother.' The other guy said, "I'm not your brother," and pulled out a pistol and shot the other guy dead.

Just two examples of tens of thousands of people shot for no reason. Two lives snuffed out in a second. I realize banning guns won't have much of an effect. It's psychology that's the problem. Sickos are out there. People have to be wily and lucky to stay alive. It probably doesn't hurt to mix with decent people, and those who aren't in to drugs (including the most harmful drug of all: alcohol) or people who aren't religious fanatics (or fanatics of other peripheral belief systems).

And that, by the way, in a city (D.C.) where handguns have been "strictly regulated" for many a year!

Guns are not strictly regulated. They can buy from private sellers from gun shows, private individuals off street, and do not have to register or pass background checks. They can then carry or take into any state or province they wish.

The problem with DC is one can buy weapons legally sold in another state from private individual and carry it in. Uniform federal registration of dealer and private sales in all states would make black market sales a more difficult proposition and make prices considerably higher for black market purchases.

Nonsense, sir.

What you say they can do, and what is legal, are two different things. You guys blather on about making more laws, but when some are cited (as useless) you blather on about how potential criminals can get around them.

Yes, background checks are required in D.C. The guns must be registered. Fingerprints, photos, and a spent shell for ballistics comparison, are also required.

Further CC permits are not available. The weapon must stay in your domicile (except for range practice, etc) and you must inform police where the weapon is stored and what it will be used for.

Yes, a D.C. resident can buy a gun elsewhere if they have residency status where the purchase is made, but cannot legally bring it back to D.C. without processing it there.

Federal gun dealers cannot transfer handguns to residents of other states. They must be sent to another dealer, and processed according to local laws, then transferred.

Dealers may not transfer even long guns to residents of other states (or D.C.) if that state or district bans such transfers. DC does so.

Here's the "uniform federal registration of dealer and private sales" you said was needed, and contradicts your claims:

28 USC 922(a-c) [18 U.S.C 922(a)(3) and (5), 922((3), 27 CFR 178.29] [18 U.S.C 922(a)(3) and (5), 922((3), 27 CFR 178.29]

Enjoy. When you're finished, there are more!

[F430murci]

Two news snippets I recall, when I resided in Wash D.C.

>>> while leaving a party of young folks, a black girl was shoved aside while leaving a party. She said, "that's no way to treat a lady." The guy said, "you no lady," pulled out a gun and shot her dead.

>>> In an elevator, a guy said something to another guy who he didn't know, and used the common tag, 'brother.' The other guy said, "I'm not your brother," and pulled out a pistol and shot the other guy dead.

Just two examples of tens of thousands of people shot for no reason. Two lives snuffed out in a second. I realize banning guns won't have much of an effect. It's psychology that's the problem. Sickos are out there. People have to be wily and lucky to stay alive. It probably doesn't hurt to mix with decent people, and those who aren't in to drugs (including the most harmful drug of all: alcohol) or people who aren't religious fanatics (or fanatics of other peripheral belief systems).

And that, by the way, in a city (D.C.) where handguns have been "strictly regulated" for many a year!

Guns are not strictly regulated. They can buy from private sellers from gun shows, private individuals off street, and do not have to register or pass background checks. They can then carry or take into any state or province they wish.

The problem with DC is one can buy weapons legally sold in another state from private individual and carry it in. Uniform federal registration of dealer and private sales in all states would make black market sales a more difficult proposition and make prices considerably higher for black market purchases.

Nonsense, sir.

What you say they can do, and what is legal, are two different things. You guys blather on about making more laws, but when some are cited (as useless) you blather on about how potential criminals can get around them.

Yes, background checks are required in D.C. The guns must be registered. Fingerprints, photos, and a spent shell for ballistics comparison, are also required.

Further CC permits are not available. The weapon must stay in your domicile (except for range practice, etc) and you must inform police where the weapon is stored and what it will be used for.

Yes, a D.C. resident can buy a gun elsewhere if they have residency status where the purchase is made, but cannot legally bring it back to D.C. without processing it there.

Federal gun dealers cannot transfer handguns to residents of other states. They must be sent to another dealer, and processed according to local laws, then transferred.

Dealers may not transfer even long guns to residents of other states (or D.C.) if that state or district bans such transfers. DC does so.

Here's the "uniform federal registration of dealer and private sales" you said was needed, and contradicts your claims:

28 USC 922(a-c) [18 U.S.C 922(a)(3) and (5), 922((3), 27 CFR 178.29] [18 U.S.C 922(a)(3) and (5), 922((3), 27 CFR 178.29]

Enjoy. When you're finished, there are more!

You completely miss my entire point and point u have been making since this began. Gun dealer sells assault weapons to his buddy, they sit next to each othe maybe at same table at a gun show, private guy can sell assault weapon to anyone without background check and without registration. This would include felons from DC or Narcis from Mexico.

Net effect is gun dealer gets increased sells indirectly and guys from DC, Mexico or wherever can get their hands on anything they want. Federal registration such as class III would follow that weapon from gun dealer end purchaser regardless as to status of sellers in the middle.

Also, what is to stop Joe Dirt in Kentucky from selling his AR-15 to a violent felon from DC or his girlfriend as a straw purchase. Nothing, so background, registration, waiting period and some responsibility for weapon ends up ala class III is needed.

[F430murci]

Two news snippets I recall, when I resided in Wash D.C.

>>> while leaving a party of young folks, a black girl was shoved aside while leaving a party. She said, "that's no way to treat a lady." The guy said, "you no lady," pulled out a gun and shot her dead.

>>> In an elevator, a guy said something to another guy who he didn't know, and used the common tag, 'brother.' The other guy said, "I'm not your brother," and pulled out a pistol and shot the other guy dead.

Just two examples of tens of thousands of people shot for no reason. Two lives snuffed out in a second. I realize banning guns won't have much of an effect. It's psychology that's the problem. Sickos are out there. People have to be wily and lucky to stay alive. It probably doesn't hurt to mix with decent people, and those who aren't in to drugs (including the most harmful drug of all: alcohol) or people who aren't religious fanatics (or fanatics of other peripheral belief systems).

And that, by the way, in a city (D.C.) where handguns have been "strictly regulated" for many a year!

I have heard and read that homicide rate has gone down significantly since tighter gun control laws in DC and that number of murders are lowest since 1963 and violence in Prince George's county lowest in 25 years. . . .

So maybe strict gun laws are doing some good. Now close loop holes, make private sales subject to background check and strict registration. Pass this in all states and eventually we will be getting somewhere

[gl555]

Two news snippets I recall, when I resided in Wash D.C.

>>> while leaving a party of young folks, a black girl was shoved aside while leaving a party. She said, "that's no way to treat a lady." The guy said, "you no lady," pulled out a gun and shot her dead.

>>> In an elevator, a guy said something to another guy who he didn't know, and used the common tag, 'brother.' The other guy said, "I'm not your brother," and pulled out a pistol and shot the other guy dead.

Just two examples of tens of thousands of people shot for no reason. Two lives snuffed out in a second. I realize banning guns won't have much of an effect. It's psychology that's the problem. Sickos are out there. People have to be wily and lucky to stay alive. It probably doesn't hurt to mix with decent people, and those who aren't in to drugs (including the most harmful drug of all: alcohol) or people who aren't religious fanatics (or fanatics of other peripheral belief systems).

And that, by the way, in a city (D.C.) where handguns have been "strictly regulated" for many a year!

I have heard and read that homicide rate has gone down significantly since tighter gun control laws in DC and that number of murders are lowest since 1963 and violence in Prince George's county lowest in 25 years. . . .

So maybe strict gun laws are doing some good. Now close loop holes, make private sales subject to background check and strict registration. Pass this in all states and eventually we will be getting somewhere

No you heard and/or read wrong. Washington DC, like Chicago are among the 2 most crime ridden cities in the United States, even though the have the toughest gun laws in the nation. However, violent crime and firearm crimes actually DROPPED after the Supreme Court struck down the handgun ban on both cities.

[F430murci]

Two news snippets I recall, when I resided in Wash D.C.

>>> while leaving a party of young folks, a black girl was shoved aside while leaving a party. She said, "that's no way to treat a lady." The guy said, "you no lady," pulled out a gun and shot her dead.

>>> In an elevator, a guy said something to another guy who he didn't know, and used the common tag, 'brother.' The other guy said, "I'm not your brother," and pulled out a pistol and shot the other guy dead.

Just two examples of tens of thousands of people shot for no reason. Two lives snuffed out in a second. I realize banning guns won't have much of an effect. It's psychology that's the problem. Sickos are out there. People have to be wily and lucky to stay alive. It probably doesn't hurt to mix with decent people, and those who aren't in to drugs (including the most harmful drug of all: alcohol) or people who aren't religious fanatics (or fanatics of other peripheral belief systems).

And that, by the way, in a city (D.C.) where handguns have been "strictly regulated" for many a year!

I have heard and read that homicide rate has gone down significantly since tighter gun control laws in DC and that number of murders are lowest since 1963 and violence in Prince George's county lowest in 25 years. . . .

So maybe strict gun laws are doing some good. Now close loop holes, make private sales subject to background check and strict registration. Pass this in all states and eventually we will be getting somewhere

No you heard and/or read wrong. Washington DC, like Chicago are among the 2 most crime ridden cities in the United States, even though the have the toughest gun laws in the nation. However, violent crime and firearm crimes actually DROPPED after the Supreme Court struck down the handgun ban on both cities.

Please educate yourself before talking on this subject.

The US Supreme struck down a crazy strict DC gun law in Heller decision (read decision for actual issues and holding) and DC quickly responded in 2008 by then passing what they called the strictest gun laws permissible under the constitution in light of Heller decision. What is incorrect about DC being below 100 murders this year and at lowest levels since 1963?

57 shot to death in DC this year. That is down from 77 shooting deaths in 2011. Problem is DC is next to Va where gun laws are lax and many guns make their way from Va and Maryland into DC, but current very restrictive gun laws appear to be doing some good in DC.

Edited December 29, 2012 by F430murci

[gl555]

57 shot to death in DC this year. That is down from 77 shooting deaths in 2011. Problem is DC is next to Va where gun laws are lax and many guns make their way from Va and Maryland into DC, but current very restrictive gun laws appear to be doing some good in DC.

This chart pokes a hole in your theory doesn't it? Murder rises after the gun ban is put into place and then peaks! So much for the 'no guns, less crime' theory. It then reduces at a gradual place and then takes a sharp drop after the law is struck down. So what if Virgina's gun laws are lax? So that means the guns coming into DC are illegal. What does that tell you?

http://www.justfacts.com/images/guncontrol/dc-full.png

[F430murci]

Two news snippets I recall, when I resided in Wash D.C.

>>> while leaving a party of young folks, a black girl was shoved aside while leaving a party. She said, "that's no way to treat a lady." The guy said, "you no lady," pulled out a gun and shot her dead.

>>> In an elevator, a guy said something to another guy who he didn't know, and used the common tag, 'brother.' The other guy said, "I'm not your brother," and pulled out a pistol and shot the other guy dead.

Just two examples of tens of thousands of people shot for no reason. Two lives snuffed out in a second. I realize banning guns won't have much of an effect. It's psychology that's the problem. Sickos are out there. People have to be wily and lucky to stay alive. It probably doesn't hurt to mix with decent people, and those who aren't in to drugs (including the most harmful drug of all: alcohol) or people who aren't religious fanatics (or fanatics of other peripheral belief systems).

And that, by the way, in a city (D.C.) where handguns have been "strictly regulated" for many a year!

I have heard and read that homicide rate has gone down significantly since tighter gun control laws in DC and that number of murders are lowest since 1963 and violence in Prince George's county lowest in 25 years. . . .

So maybe strict gun laws are doing some good. Now close loop holes, make private sales subject to background check and strict registration. Pass this in all states and eventually we will be getting somewhere

No you heard and/or read wrong. Washington DC, like Chicago are among the 2 most crime ridden cities in the United States, even though the have the toughest gun laws in the nation. However, violent crime and firearm crimes actually DROPPED after the Supreme Court struck down the handgun ban on both cities.

DC homocide rates. Sweeping DC gun laws passed December 2008 in response to Heller decision in June of 2008 so actually a bit of a rise the year Supreme Court struck Heller. I would call the post December 2008 gun law enactment drops pretty signficant.

Historic Context

[gl555]

DC homocide rates. Sweeping DC gun laws passed December 2008 in response to Heller decision in June of 2008 so actually a bit of a rise the year Supreme Court struck Heller. I would call the post December 2008 gun law enactment drops pretty signficant.

Historic Context

Yeap crime has taken a sharp drop after the handgun ban is struck down. Proves the point that legal guns in the hands of citizens does lower crime rate.

[F430murci]

DC homocide rates. Sweeping DC gun laws passed December 2008 in response to Heller decision in June of 2008 so actually a bit of a rise the year Supreme Court struck Heller. I would call the post December 2008 gun law enactment drops pretty signficant.

Historic Context

Yeap crime has taken a sharp drop after the handgun ban is struck down. Proves the point that legal guns in the hands of citizens does lower crime rate.

Huh, at first you say laws did no good. Homocides dropped from 450 to 175 during handgun ban. DC still has most restrictive laws in country which you guys before was saying did no good. These restrictive laws and strict registration requirements are apparently working in DC so why oppose the same in all states.

I have never argued that normal hand guns should be banned. I only argue for background checks on private sales and strict registration requirements for all guns. You guys never say whether you agree or disagree with this and always change subject to complete ban efforts.

So . . . The question is simply do you oppose all states having the exact same guns laws now in effect in DC?

Edited December 29, 2012 by F430murci

[gl555]

DC homocide rates. Sweeping DC gun laws passed December 2008 in response to Heller decision in June of 2008 so actually a bit of a rise the year Supreme Court struck Heller. I would call the post December 2008 gun law enactment drops pretty signficant.

Historic Context

Yeap crime has taken a sharp drop after the handgun ban is struck down. Proves the point that legal guns in the hands of citizens does lower crime rate.

Huh, at first you say laws did no good. Homocides dropped from 400 to 175 during handgun ban. DC still has most restrictive laws in country which you guys before was saying did no good. These restrictive laws and strict registration requirements are apparently working in DC so why oppose the same in all states.

I have never argued that normal hand guns should be banned. I only argue for background checks on private sales and strict registration requirements for all guns. You guys never say whether you agree or disagree with this and always change subject to complete ban efforts.

BTW, your in the hand of legal owner arguments only assumes that prior violence was targeted at those types thta legally own guns now. Not true, most handgun victims are individuals with criminal backgrounds who under current laws cannot legally purchase and own and purchase guns that killed killed during arguments with epople they know.

http://homicidewatch...year-in-charts/

I don't know how you're reading your chart but it's plain to see, homicides went up and then peaked during the years of the handgun ban. And after it reached it's peaked slowly went down. It then took a sharp drop AFTER the ban was quashed and citizens were able to purchase handguns legally and defend themselves. What else is there to say?

[F430murci]

DC homocide rates. Sweeping DC gun laws passed December 2008 in response to Heller decision in June of 2008 so actually a bit of a rise the year Supreme Court struck Heller. I would call the post December 2008 gun law enactment drops pretty signficant.

Historic Context

Yeap crime has taken a sharp drop after the handgun ban is struck down. Proves the point that legal guns in the hands of citizens does lower crime rate.

Huh, at first you say laws did no good. Homocides dropped from 400 to 175 during handgun ban. DC still has most restrictive laws in country which you guys before was saying did no good. These restrictive laws and strict registration requirements are apparently working in DC so why oppose the same in all states.

I have never argued that normal hand guns should be banned. I only argue for background checks on private sales and strict registration requirements for all guns. You guys never say whether you agree or disagree with this and always change subject to complete ban efforts.

BTW, your in the hand of legal owner arguments only assumes that prior violence was targeted at those types thta legally own guns now. Not true, most handgun victims are individuals with criminal backgrounds who under current laws cannot legally purchase and own and purchase guns that killed killed during arguments with epople they know.

http://homicidewatch...year-in-charts/

I don't know how you're reading your chart but it's plain to see, homicides went up and then peaked during the years of the handgun ban. And after it reached it's peaked slowly went down. It then took a sharp drop AFTER the ban was quashed and citizens were able to purchase handguns legally and defend themselves. What else is there to say?

I had a condo in DC in 2002-04 and spent a lot of time up there in the late 80s and early 90s after graduating from George Washington University.

What I was trying to allude to in a very politically correct way was that the vast majority of DC violence is and always has been black on black, drug and gang related disputes primarily occurring in certain neighborhoods or areas. Neither the shooter nor the perp would likely ever pass a background check.

I doubt either one of us fit the typical DC gun crime victim profile or would even in be in the neighborhhods where violence was/is prevalant. So . . . the point being is you, I and similarly situated people can buy all the guns we want and it is not going to have any impact on gun crime or homocide rate unless we turn to crack and start going into high risk neighborhoods to buy and sell crack to support our habbits.

The question that you seem to duck is simply whether you oppose all states having the exact same guns laws now in effect in DC?

Edited December 29, 2012 by F430murci

[gl555]

I had a condo in DC in 2002-04 and spent a lot of time up there in the late 80s and early 90s after graduating from George Washington University.

What I was trying to allude to in a very politically correct way was that the vast majority of DC violence is and always has been black on black, drug and gang related disputes primarily occurring in certain neighborhoods or areas. Neither the shooter nor the perp would likely ever pass a background check.

I doubt either one of us fit the typical DC gun crime victim profile or would even in be in the neighborhhods where violence was/is prevalant. So . . . the point being is you, I and similarly situated people can buy all the guns we want and it is not going to have any impact on gun crime or homocide rate unless we turn to crack and start going into high risk neighborhoods to buy and sell crack to support our habbits.

The question that you seem to duck is simply whether you oppose all states having the exact same guns laws now in effect in DC?

My answer goes all the way back to page 1 and it's this. You can have all the gun control you want but it still won't stop the criminals from getting illegal weapons from the 300 million guns still out there. DC's high crime rate (even though it has dropped after the gun ban was lifted) just goes to show gun control doesn't really work. The numerous black on black gang killings just goes to show no matter how tough a gun law you put in place, the criminals will still be able to get illegal guns easily anyway. And while the law abiding citizens may not be the majority killed because of gang and drug violence, they are still in danger of getting robbed, mugged, raped, house invaded, you name it! And thus a law abiding citizen should have every right to purchase a legal weapon easily.

[F430murci]

I had a condo in DC in 2002-04 and spent a lot of time up there in the late 80s and early 90s after graduating from George Washington University.

What I was trying to allude to in a very politically correct way was that the vast majority of DC violence is and always has been black on black, drug and gang related disputes primarily occurring in certain neighborhoods or areas. Neither the shooter nor the perp would likely ever pass a background check.

I doubt either one of us fit the typical DC gun crime victim profile or would even in be in the neighborhhods where violence was/is prevalant. So . . . the point being is you, I and similarly situated people can buy all the guns we want and it is not going to have any impact on gun crime or homocide rate unless we turn to crack and start going into high risk neighborhoods to buy and sell crack to support our habbits.

The question that you seem to duck is simply whether you oppose all states having the exact same guns laws now in effect in DC?

My answer goes all the way back to page 1 and it's this. You can have all the gun control you want but it still won't stop the criminals from getting illegal weapons from the 300 million guns still out there. DC's high crime rate (even though it has dropped after the gun ban was lifted) just goes to show gun control doesn't really work. The numerous black on black gang killings just goes to show no matter how tough a gun law you put in place, the criminals will still be able to get illegal guns easily anyway. And while the law abiding citizens may not be the majority killed because of gang and drug violence, they are still in danger of getting robbed, mugged, raped, house invaded, you name it! And thus a law abiding citizen should have every right to purchase a legal weapon easily.

So you are against states having laws like DC even though the homicide rate has gone from 500 to 77.

Where do you live? Montanna? You are really out of touch with reality of urban crime and gang issues.

You can be packing your pistol all you want and in a city like Memphis you will still get capped for going into the wring neighborhood. Those guys have feared getting shot since they were 10 or 12 and have have metal detectors in school since grade school. After a while, the fear turns to apathy or rage and you having a gun is no deference. They live in a war zone and we live in lillywhiteputin. Us with something lose will hesitate that spli second and just got shot for having a gun.

I worked on a case once representing property owner that had a rap club in a strip mall. The club had metal detectors and like 20 bouncers that night. There were 8 squad cars in parking lot. A guy who had gotten busted and lost of load of coke was walking toward club in parking lot. The perp walked up, held gun to his head, emptied clip, placed gun on his chest, turned around and just walked away. Thus was with 8 cop cars close by and they never caught dude.

Point being, these guys are not scared of anything and if they want you dead, there is nothing you can do about it. I have seen cases where guy was shot over a chicken wing. Most if the dead guys have guns and are not afraid to use them.

[gl555]

I had a condo in DC in 2002-04 and spent a lot of time up there in the late 80s and early 90s after graduating from George Washington University.

What I was trying to allude to in a very politically correct way was that the vast majority of DC violence is and always has been black on black, drug and gang related disputes primarily occurring in certain neighborhoods or areas. Neither the shooter nor the perp would likely ever pass a background check.

I doubt either one of us fit the typical DC gun crime victim profile or would even in be in the neighborhhods where violence was/is prevalant. So . . . the point being is you, I and similarly situated people can buy all the guns we want and it is not going to have any impact on gun crime or homocide rate unless we turn to crack and start going into high risk neighborhoods to buy and sell crack to support our habbits.

The question that you seem to duck is simply whether you oppose all states having the exact same guns laws now in effect in DC?

My answer goes all the way back to page 1 and it's this. You can have all the gun control you want but it still won't stop the criminals from getting illegal weapons from the 300 million guns still out there. DC's high crime rate (even though it has dropped after the gun ban was lifted) just goes to show gun control doesn't really work. The numerous black on black gang killings just goes to show no matter how tough a gun law you put in place, the criminals will still be able to get illegal guns easily anyway. And while the law abiding citizens may not be the majority killed because of gang and drug violence, they are still in danger of getting robbed, mugged, raped, house invaded, you name it! And thus a law abiding citizen should have every right to purchase a legal weapon easily.

So you are against states having laws like DC even though the homicide rate has gone from 500 to 77.

Where do you live? Montanna? You are really out of touch with reality of urban crime and gang issues.

You can be packing your pistol all you want and in a city like Memphis you will still get capped for going into the wring neighborhood. Those guys have feared getting shot since they were 10 or 12 and have have metal detectors in school since grade school. After a while, the fear turns to apathy or rage and you having a gun is no deference. They live in a war zone and we live in lillywhiteputin. Us with something lose will hesitate that spli second and just got shot for having a gun.

I worked on a case once representing property owner that had a rap club in a strip mall. The club had metal detectors and like 20 bouncers that night. There were 8 squad cars in parking lot. A guy who had gotten busted and lost of load of coke was walking toward club in parking lot. The perp walked up, held gun to his head, emptied clip, placed gun on his chest, turned around and just walked away. Thus was with 8 cop cars close by and they never caught dude.

Point being, these guys are not scared of anything and if they want you dead, there is nothing you can do about it. I have seen cases where guy was shot over a chicken wing. Most if the dead guys have guns and are not afraid to use them.

You seem to be ignoring the 300 million guns already out there. What's the point of having draconian gun laws when a criminal, who isn't going to be able to buy a gun legally anyway, can easily buy one illegally? These tough gun laws only prevent law abiding citizens from getting a legal weapon easily. Now you say it's because of the gun laws that DC's murder rate has dropped. I say it's because the gun ban was lifted and citizens are once again able to defend themselves.

Your example of the crazies and the animals out there who aren't afraid of the cops and who would blatantly shoot someone in front of them is the perfect example of why citizens should be able to have guns and defend themselves. I mean if you can't rely on the police to protect you from getting shot then you just have to defend yourself. Tough gun control laws don't stop criminals from getting guns. If they're not afraid of killing someone, you think they care whether they're put in jail for having an illegal firearm? On the opposite side, it just makes it more difficult for a law abiding citizen from getting a weapon legally. And he's definitely not going to buy an illegal weapon for fear of getting arrested.