Another US Gun Nut Opens Fire

myp

myp

Jan 2009
5,841
50
Ok, so you are not for abolition, but just against having guns in public. My question to you then, is how will a law forbidding guns in public stop criminals from carrying them any way? Criminals clearly don't care for the law and would still carry them. Speeding, etc. is easier to enforce because a cop can radar people- in this case it is very hard to tell who has a gun and who doesn't because they are so easy to conceal. The criminals will still have the guns and if it were legal, innocent people would have them to but law-abiding citizens aren't just going to be shooting at will. Either way, the criminals will carry them in the public and shoot them if they want to (including in countries that have banned such occurrences- handgun crimes still happen in Britain, etc.)

As for comparing to Canada, why not just compare within the countries- Britain before and after, Australia before and after, etc. I think we can both agree that from a scientific standpoint, those comparisons have fewer change in other effecting variables, making the data more conclusive.
 
dave

dave

Jan 2010
131
0
Alaska
chuck schmidt said:
....... I simply disagree with individuals being armed in public for the purpose of shooting other individuals in public. That's what a government and police are for. The faster unnecessary guns are off the street the faster the problem diminishes, and the faster it becomes justifiable to start disarming government.
Click to expand...

I live in Florida, Florida has a high rate of "civilians" that have concealed carry permits, and we do not have a problem with those individuals. Quite the opposite.


From 1987 through 2008, the Florida Dept of Agriculture, Div of Licensing, has issued a total of 1,593,602 Concealed Carry Weapon (CCW) Permits. Of these permits, 5,035 were revoked for various reasons (572 of those were reinstated after investigation). Of those revoked, 167 were for committing a crime with a firearm. As a percentage, 0.28% of all permits have been revoked, 0.0105% of all permits were revoked for a firearm related activity.

Statistics from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement show that since the CCW law was enacted, crime has dropped across the state and in major cities (Tamp, Miami, Jacksonville). The total crime rate in Florida in 2008 was 4.7%, the total violent crime rate was 0.67%. The annual crime rate from 1971-2008 is provided at the bottom as an attachment (data from the Florida Dept of Law Enforcement web site).

Since the CCW program was begun, the FDLE has tracked crimes committed by CCW holders. CCW holders are the most law abiding segment of the population, and the FDLE and State legislature have proposed stopping the tracking of CCW crime statistics as a waste of time and resources.

A first time applicant must pass a safety and concealed carry class, demonstrate proficiency with the handgun to be carried, submit fingerprints and an application to the FDLE for a background check, and pay a nominal fee.
 

Attachments

  • crime data FDLE .jpg
    crime data FDLE .jpg
    40.3 KB · Views: 1
dave

dave

Jan 2010
131
0
Alaska
chuck schmidt said:
Second is that I do not disagree with being responsible for my and my family's safety. I simply disagree with individuals being armed in public for the purpose of shooting other individuals in public. That's what a government and police are for.
Click to expand...

And continuing on the same theme (some of this I copied from my posts in other threads in this forum - the gun issue comes up routinely)....

Personal safety is a primary issue. I don't know where you live, maybe next door to the police station, but the police cannot protect you. They can deter, they can punish after the fact, but they cannot guarantee your safety. If you are in a situation and your life is in imminent danger, how long will it take for the police to arrive (assuming you can dial 911 and get the necessary information to the operator)? Is it faster than the time needed for the criminal to hurt or kill you?
　
I live in small town America, we don't have cable tv, there are areas that don't have cell phone coverage. If you call 911 and the deputy on duty is at the other end of the county it can easily take 10 minutes for him to arrive at my house even with lights and siren. If I am off in a remote pasture, in the woods, riding a horse, camping, on a dirt road, and the cell phone works, it may take hours to find me.

I don't have any problem with arming people if they can show they are competent. Thats what works in FLorida and elsewhere in the nation. But thats a slippery slope, once you allow a restriction (competency testing), once you give in a little in the gun control direction, the fear is the gun control nuts will push for more because they are idealogues and want a completely disarmed population. Thats why the NRA fights against all moves in the gun restriction direction.
 
deanhills

deanhills

Mar 2009
2,188
2
I would arm myself, especially because of the uncertainty. But when I do, I would have to take responsibility for knowing how to use the arms, be prepared to kill someone, and know how to keep it in a safe place. Hopefully there is legislation in place for safe keeping of guns and armaments.
 
dave

dave

Jan 2010
131
0
Alaska
deanhills said:
I would arm myself, especially because of the uncertainty. But when I do, I would have to take responsibility for knowing how to use the arms, be prepared to kill someone, and know how to keep it in a safe place. Hopefully there is legislation in place for safe keeping of guns and armaments.
Click to expand...

Safe storage is one of those push button issues that get people excited because the gun control fanatics use "storage" as a strong step to removing firearms from the home. By making the safe storage requirements expensive and difficult to meet, gun ownership can be curtailed. By making a person get permission from the authorities (via an approved storage inspection), a single gun control advocate in the right govt office can block gun ownership.

Also, once a law is in place that requires "safe storage" or "secure storage", it also allows government inspection of your home to verify proper storage. If the govt suspects you have a firearm stored imporperly, they can search your house.

That's exactly what has happened in Great Britain and Canada.
 
deanhills

deanhills

Mar 2009
2,188
2
dave said:
Also, once a law is in place that requires "safe storage" or "secure storage", it also allows government inspection of your home to verify proper storage. If the govt suspects you have a firearm stored imporperly, they can search your house.
Click to expand...
I thought that would only have become an issue when a gun has been used, i.e. home invasion or by accident? Also when one reports a gun stolen?
 
dave

dave

Jan 2010
131
0
Alaska
deanhills said:
I thought that would only have become an issue when a gun has been used, i.e. home invasion or by accident? Also when one reports a gun stolen?
Click to expand...

Its phrased in various ways, as an annual inspection, or an inspection when a person acquires a firearm, every time they acquire a firearm. They can search when someone complains, such as a childs friend is in your house, goes home and says you have a firearm, the parent wants to make sure its safely stored and complains. Or in divorce or custody issues, anytime there is a question of chidrens safety. If you buy a firearm, then sell it or give it away and the authorites suspect you still have it. Or you think there is an intruder outside your house, and you go outside but there is no intruder, but your neighbor sees you with a firearm and they complain. All of those cases are real world cases from Canada and Great Britain.

And how do they determine if you are storing all your firearms safely? There are only 2 ways: all firearms have to be registered and when they inspect, they can see that all registered firearms are in the safe; or they inspect the entire house (and cars, and front yard and back yard) to try to find firearms that are not stored properly.

There is a second step to the "safe storage" issue. Some proponents think that people should not store in the home at all, that firearms should be stored in the local police station or a govt storage facility. When you want to go hunting or go to the gun club, you have to go check out your firearm.

"Safe storage" and "tracable ammunition" are big gun control avenues now. Since they have lost in the legislatures and seem to be loosing in the courts, they are looking for alternative routes through the bureaucracy. Its the typical approach used by liberals, "its for the children".
 
DodgeFB

DodgeFB

Mar 2009
2,751
6
Undisclosed
chuck schmidt said:
A number of points, Dodge. The first is that I choose not to personalize my post. My position is related to what I perceive as social issues, not individuals. You are free to do as you choose.

Second is that I do not disagree with being responsible for my and my family's safety. I simply disagree with individuals being armed in public for the purpose of shooting other individuals in public. That's what a government and police are for. The faster unnecessary guns are off the street the faster the problem diminishes, and the faster it becomes justifiable to start disarming government.

Third, I do not hate guns and gunners. I own guns, I have shot all my life and I reload my own ammunition. I believe I should have a right to have guns at home and for sport.

Fourth, I do not hate America and Americans. You don't know my nationality and its none of your business. It is irrelevant to this issue.

Fifth, I read your link and am unimpressed.
Click to expand...

As I am with your arguments.:)
 
C

chuck schmidt

Jan 2010
317
0
myp said:
Ok, so you are not for abolition, but just against having guns in public. My question to you then, is how will a law forbidding guns in public stop criminals from carrying them any way?
Click to expand...

The criminal law can prevent unlawfully carrying firearms in public the same way it can prevent all other firearms crimes. If, as you say, the problem is out of control, then all the more reason for more enforcement.


Criminals clearly don't care for the law and would still carry them. Speeding, etc. is easier to enforce because a cop can radar people- in this case it is very hard to tell who has a gun and who doesn't because they are so easy to conceal.
Click to expand...
Ah well. Sorry, but the frontier was declared closed around 1905. Time to grow up.

As for comparing to Canada, why not just compare within the countries- Britain before and after, Australia before and after, etc. I think we can both agree that from a scientific standpoint, those comparisons have fewer change in other effecting variables, making the data more conclusive.
Click to expand...
In the last post you said do not compare Britain because it is too different. Now you are saying compare it. Why? Canada and America are both "american" cultures and Canada doesn't have a gun problem. Are you afraid you'll lose?
 
myp

myp

Jan 2009
5,841
50
chuck schmidt said:
The criminal law can prevent unlawfully carrying firearms in public the same way it can prevent all other firearms crimes. If, as you say, the problem is out of control, then all the more reason for more enforcement.
Click to expand...
Well first off, I want to say that I do not see it as a "problem." That is a matter of opinion and we both have to accept that. I am just saying, that logically criminals will have their guns in public if they want, so I see no problem with ordinary citizens having them to.


chuck schmidt said:
Ah well. Sorry, but the frontier was declared closed around 1905. Time to grow up.
Click to expand...
This sort of comment just hurts your ethos. We are discussing an important issue and we both have differing opinions- no need to call mine childish. If you want to make logical arguments against me, I completely welcome that, but his sort of comment helps no one.

chuck schmidt said:
In the last post you said do not compare Britain because it is too different. Now you are saying compare it. Why? Canada and America are both "american" cultures and Canada doesn't have a gun problem. Are you afraid you'll lose?
Click to expand...
I said compare Britain with ITSELF or Canada with ITSELF or Australia with ITSELF. When scientists experiment, they try as best as they can to keep all other variables the same except what is being tested. This is the same case here. Canada may be closer to American culture, but Canadian culture x years ago is still closer to Canadian culture today as opposed to Canadian culture today vs. American culture today.

And again, the afraid to lose comment is really unnecessary- this is a debate and with no debate moderator, there is no real winner or loser- we are just discussing an important issue as rational beings.
 
C

chuck schmidt

Jan 2010
317
0
dave said:
I live in Florida, Florida has a high rate of "civilians" that have concealed carry permits, and we do not have a problem with those individuals. Quite the opposite.

From 1987 through 2008, the Florida Dept of Agriculture, Div of Licensing, has issued a total of 1,593,602 Concealed Carry Weapon (CCW) Permits. Of these permits, 5,035 were revoked for various reasons (572 of those were reinstated after investigation). Of those revoked, 167 were for committing a crime with a firearm. As a percentage, 0.28% of all permits have been revoked, 0.0105% of all permits were revoked for a firearm related activity.

Statistics from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement show that since the CCW law was enacted, crime has dropped across the state and in major cities (Tamp, Miami, Jacksonville). The total crime rate in Florida in 2008 was 4.7%, the total violent crime rate was 0.67%. The annual crime rate from 1971-2008 is provided at the bottom as an attachment (data from the Florida Dept of Law Enforcement web site).

Since the CCW program was begun, the FDLE has tracked crimes committed by CCW holders. CCW holders are the most law abiding segment of the population, and the FDLE and State legislature have proposed stopping the tracking of CCW crime statistics as a waste of time and resources.

A first time applicant must pass a safety and concealed carry class, demonstrate proficiency with the handgun to be carried, submit fingerprints and an application to the FDLE for a background check, and pay a nominal fee.
Click to expand...

When you say, "that Florida has a high rate of "civilians" that have concealed carry permits ," I read cop-wannba-be's. No thanks. Go play paint ball.

What you are arguing is the old story about statistics. Lies and damn lies all of which prove nothing. On a per capita basis America has more gun crime than any other country. Florida is high on the list of states with a high rate of gun crimes, so obviously the strategy has failed - even though your sentence appears to be worded to obscure the truth. It is common in the law for something to be so threatening to society that a law is passed to control and effect everybody. You are arguing that there should be a special class of unofficial citizen who is allowed to carry guns in public to shoot people with, instead of saying only cops can do that. My argument is that Florida has too much gun crime because too many guns are available. Take away the supply and criminalize carrying concealed guns in public, and everybody is more protected. Only cops should have the right to carry guns in public to shoot people with.
 
C

chuck schmidt

Jan 2010
317
0
dave said:
And continuing on the same theme (some of this I copied from my posts in other threads in this forum - the gun issue comes up routinely)....

Personal safety is a primary issue. I don't know where you live, maybe next door to the police station, but the police cannot protect you. They can deter, they can punish after the fact, but they cannot guarantee your safety. If you are in a situation and your life is in imminent danger, how long will it take for the police to arrive (assuming you can dial 911 and get the necessary information to the operator)? Is it faster than the time needed for the criminal to hurt or kill you?
Click to expand...
　
Democracy requires sacrifices. If my kids can't live safe because you need guns maybe you should live in a freer country like Somalia?

I live in small town America, we don't have cable tv, there are areas that don't have cell phone coverage. If you call 911 and the deputy on duty is at the other end of the county it can easily take 10 minutes for him to arrive at my house even with lights and siren. If I am off in a remote pasture, in the woods, riding a horse, camping, on a dirt road, and the cell phone works, it may take hours to find me.
Click to expand...

Oh come on. Weak weak argument. Who said anything about not carrying a gun in the bush? I do it all the time. No matter where you are in the bush finding you can be tough and whether you have a gun is irrelevant. Unless of course you are prowling around dope grows? If so you should report them to police and let the law do its job.

once you allow a restriction (competency testing), once you give in a little in the gun control direction, the fear is the gun control nuts will push for more because they are idealogues and want a completely disarmed population. Thats why the NRA fights against all moves in the gun restriction direction.
Click to expand...
Yeah, right. I have been listening to that silly argument since 1960. The same as one puff of a joint leads you down the road to heroin, rape and murder. Hell-ooooooooooo - America already has competency testing and gun control. Next thing people will be complaining that driver's license testing creates auto thieves.
 
C

chuck schmidt

Jan 2010
317
0
dave said:
If the govt suspects you have a firearm stored imporperly, they can search your house.

That's exactly what has happened in Great Britain and Canada.
Click to expand...

They can do the same thing if they suspect you have illegal substances or stolen property. No difference at all. That is no argument about guns. It's an argument about police powers.

deanhills said:
I would arm myself, especially because of the uncertainty. But when I do, I would have to ... be prepared to kill someone, and know how to keep it in a safe place.
Click to expand...

How many people have you shot?

DodgeFB said:
As I am with your arguments.:)
Click to expand...
Ah yes, my friend, but I do you the courtesy of addressing your arguments and demonstrating the weaknesses in them. You just complain about mine without logically refuting them. :D
 
David

David

Jul 2009
5,893
474
Port St. Lucie
chuck schmidt said:
just complain about mine without logically refuting them. :D
Click to expand...

And you spew liberal talking points without any arguments of your own or links to sources to back you up. Seriously, you called gov't stats given by dave, "Lies and damn lies...".

Do facts bother you?
 
C

chuck schmidt

Jan 2010
317
0
David said:
And you spew liberal talking points without any arguments of your own or links to sources to back you up. Seriously, you called gov't stats given by dave, "Lies and damn lies...".

Do facts bother you?
Click to expand...

What facts? I "spew", do I? US firearm deaths per capita are an order of magnitude greater than other western nations, yet my data is dismissed because it is Internet? Is my post causing a gun-nut temper tantrum? Sorry, but your arguments appear to be accustomed to fencing against those who want to ban all firearms out of altruism. I am a life-time gun owner, shooter and sporting ammunition reloader who disagrees with gun-nuts being armed in public for the purpose of shooting other people. Arguments that might impress Bubba merely offend my sense of reality.
 
David

David

Jul 2009
5,893
474
Port St. Lucie
chuck schmidt said:
What facts? I "spew", do I? US firearm deaths per capita are an order of magnitude greater than other western nations, yet my data is dismissed because it is Internet? Is my post causing a gun-nut temper tantrum? Sorry, but your arguments appear to be accustomed to fencing against those who want to ban all firearms out of altruism. I am a life-time gun owner, shooter and sporting ammunition reloader who disagrees with gun-nuts being armed in public for the purpose of shooting other people. Arguments that might impress Bubba merely offend my sense of reality.
Click to expand...

What data? You posted typical liberal talking points. Nothing original. No links. No citations. Nothing.

Nice dodge attempt, anyway. Rather then dismissing us "gun nuts" out of hand, show some actual data and make arguments that a simple Google search wont prove to be a dime a dozen. I'll happily debate you once you give me something to debate.
 
DodgeFB

DodgeFB

Mar 2009
2,751
6
Undisclosed
chuck schmidt said:
Ah yes, my friend, but I do you the courtesy of addressing your arguments and demonstrating the weaknesses in them. You just complain about mine without logically refuting them. :D
Click to expand...
I don't see much "courtesy" coming from you about anything to anyone. You just seem to devote all your efforts to harping and complaining about all of America's so called problems. But I can see we will never find agreement on anything. If I said the sun is hot you would try to prove there is ice on the sun or something. You may live in America or you may live on Mars. It makes no difference to me. We can find people all over the world to trash the US and our way of life. So there is nothing special about that.

Why does everything you disagree with need another law? There are plenty of laws on the books to cover most things.

Enough said for Chuck and Dodge. Time to move on. Have a nice day.:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
deanhills

deanhills

Mar 2009
2,188
2
chuck schmidt said:
I am a life-time gun owner, shooter and sporting ammunition reloader who disagrees with gun-nuts being armed in public for the purpose of shooting other people. Arguments that might impress Bubba merely offend my sense of reality.
Click to expand...
I'm quite intrigued by the label of "gun-nuts". How does one differentiate between life-time gun owners who know how to use guns responsibly like you do, and gun-nuts?

I don't think guns shoot and kill people, but people use guns to shoot people. As long as there is a need to kill or to defend against being killed, guns will be around, legally or illegally. Legislation won't make a difference.
 
dave

dave

Jan 2010
131
0
Alaska
chuck schmidt said:
When you say, "that Florida has a high rate of "civilians" that have concealed carry permits," I read cop-wannba-be's. No thanks. Go play paint ball..
Click to expand...
I can't answer for your home town, but "cop wanna bes" is far off the mark. I might be wrong, you say you have firearms and seem to at least go hunting, but it doesn't look like you understand why people want to own firearms. I know many people that carry, none of them want to be vigilantes or are "cop wanna be's", although I'm sure there are people that have that attitude.
chuck schmidt said:
What you are arguing is the old story about statistics. Lies and damn lies all of which prove nothing. On a per capita basis America has more gun crime than any other country. Florida is high on the list of states with a high rate of gun crimes, so obviously the strategy has failed - even though your sentence appears to be worded to obscure the truth. It is common in the law for something to be so threatening to society that a law is passed to control and effect everybody. You are arguing that there should be a special class of unofficial citizen who is allowed to carry guns in public to shoot people with, instead of saying only cops can do that. My argument is that Florida has too much gun crime because too many guns are available. Take away the supply and criminalize carrying concealed guns in public, and everybody is more protected. Only cops should have the right to carry guns in public to shoot people with.
Click to expand...
Your arguement is that more guns = more crime. That isn't true. The number of homes with guns has increased dramatically, the number of individuals with guns has increased dramatically, crime has dropped. Thats the crime rate, rate of firearm crimes, number of firearm crimes. You aren't going to believe me, so go look it up in the FBI crime reports, the FBI provides all the data and you can download it and see for yourself.

Florida is high in the list for total crime and violent crime, somewhere around #6 in the nation, but #24 in firearm crimes. The crime rate and firearm crime rate has been dropping much faster than the national average, particularly since the concealed carry law was passed. See the chart I put up earlier, but you won't believe that so you can go look it up for yourself on the FDLE site.

The arguement in Florida, and backed by the data, is that the increased availability of firearms has decreased crime. The process works in Florida.

Again, in Florida, the most law abiding and safest segment of the population is the group with carry permits (safer than the law enforcement community). Thats the data, you can't argue with the facts but you can deny them.

I am not argueing that there should be a special class of citizen with the right to shoot people, my position is that all citizens have the right to defend himself/herself and their loved ones and their home.
 
C

chuck schmidt

Jan 2010
317
0
I just attached all three of our recent ‘back and forths’ so we can look at them. You quoted me as saying

Originally Posted by chuck schmidt just complain about mine without logically refuting them.
Click to expand...
So you said

And you spew liberal talking points without any arguments of your own or links to sources to back you up. Seriously, you called gov't stats given by dave, "Lies and damn lies...".

Do facts bother you?
Click to expand...
The "lies and damned lies" quote wasn't name calling, it is a quote from an old expression about statistics. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statistics . Wicki says it is Mark Twain quoting Brit Prime Minister Benjamin Disreali or someone else. I intend it as an old expression inserted to make the debate more fun and I do not apologize for it. It is part of American literature.

You ask if facts bother me? Of course not. That’s why I am debating. But facts must be matched to ideas to create a discussion. It is kinda unfair for you to expect me to accept your facts at face value while ignoring my interpretations of fact.

David said:
What data? You posted typical liberal talking points. Nothing original. No links. No citations. Nothing.
Click to expand...

Ri-i-i-i-ight. My ideas are just “typical liberal talking points”? I am a shooter too. Possibly for longer than you. I have listened to the NRA talking points all my life and believed them for a long time. Eventually I started thinking for myself. IMO they were invented by some arms industry “PR” man or NRA wienie and have been regurgitated without thought for years. America is no longer a series of small communities clinging to thousands of miles of east coast and facing a huge wilderness by people armed only with muzzle loaders. It is a huge industrial superpower possessing ghettos, Glocks, MP5’s, miniguns and the world’s biggest prison population. Guns have become a problem and a compromise from the old way is needed.

Nice dodge attempt, anyway. Rather then dismissing us "gun nuts" out of hand, show some actual data and make arguments that a simple Google search wont prove to be a dime a dozen. I'll happily debate you once you give me something to debate.
Click to expand...

There is another gun thread in which I posted a page or two from Wicki which somebody dismissed because it was 'just Wicki' and without discussing the facts. I thought you debated there, but I guess I was wrong. Careful though when you discredit everything from Wicki – honest, the world really is not flat just because Wicki says it is not.

My position is in favor of gun ownership. I just don’t think that anybody except cops should carry guns in public for the purpose of shooting other people. There is an over-supply of guns created by an old west myth. That myth kills thousands of people a year, many of whom are children. Would I melt down every hand gun in America to save children? If it had been done in 2003 it would have saved 3,000 of them. Yes, I would melt them all to save 3,000 American children.

When I refer to “gun nuts” you say that my arguments are a dime a dozen that a Google search can find. Hell-oooooooooooooo – maybe that is because I am speaking plain truth? Maybe I should just post some excerpts on several posts to get around the restrictions on long posts and too much direct quoting? Here is link number one. http://www.neahin.org/programs/schoolsafety/gunsafety/statistics.htm#guns
 
Login or Register / Reply

Similar threads

Narmin Tagiyeva
Armenian terrorism
Replies
2
Views
234
Narmin Tagiyeva
reedak
Yankee Coronavirus
Replies
0
Views
454
reedak
Top