ncmedic309 Posted April 17, 2008 Posted April 17, 2008 If more law-abiding citizens would arm themselves - we would have a lot less victims of violent crimes and less repeat offenders on the streets. I'm not trying to knock the police, but the "to protect and serve" slogan is a false sense of security. The police do the best that they can but are too limited these days when it comes to available resources and the ability to get garbage off the street. The criminals always have the upper hand with the police having to justify everything they do - they can't just do their jobs. If you want protection, your going to have to provide it for yourself. The police are seldomly in the right place at the right time. The crime rate in our area is sky rocketing and the citizens are finally realizing that the only way they can keep from becoming victims is to protect themselves. The CCW courses in this area two years ago only had an average of about 15 people per class, this year the average is over 40 per class. We shouldn't restrict the abilities of students to protect themselves on campus. I'm not for everybody going out and buying a gun, but if you can obtain a weapon through the legal process that includes the extensive medical and criminal background checks and take the appropriate courses that go along with - I'm all for it! It again comes back down to being in the right place at the right time - but again - the police obviously couldn't stop the majority of these school shootings as evidenced by 30+ deaths before the gunman takes his own life. We should never have such a thing happen. I have a CCW and I carry everywhere that law allows me to do so. My handgun is as common as my wallet, when my wallet goes in my pocket, my gun goes on my hip. If your a business that restricts the ability for me to legally carry my weapon - you've lost my business. If it's a property or institution that restricts me from carrying - I try to avoid that facility at all costs. If I can't be armed - I don't want to be there. I don't rely on anyone to protect me and my family but yet that still doesn't give me any certainty of absolute security and safety. I know that I have less of a chance at becoming a "victim" and having a better chance and stopping a violent crime against me and / or my family.
jsadin Posted April 17, 2008 Posted April 17, 2008 You are wise to depend upon yourself for protection of you and your loved ones. ". . . a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen . . ." Reference: Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App.181) In this case three rape victims sued the city and its police department under the following facts: Two of the victims were upstairs when they heard the other being attacked by men who had broken in downstairs. Half an hour having passed and their roommate's screams having ceased, they assumed the police must have arrived in response to their repeated phone calls. In fact their calls had somehow been lost in the shuffle while the roommate was being beaten into silent acquiescence. So when the roommates went downstairs to see to her, as the court's opinion graphically describes it, "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands" of their attackers. Having set out these facts, the court promptly exonerated the District of Columbia and its police, as was clearly required by the fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.
Dustdevil Posted April 17, 2008 Posted April 17, 2008 All through the 1980s and 90s, Fort Worth, Texas had a police chief named Thomas Wyndam (RIP). He was staunchly anti-gun. Always in the media complaining about the gun proliferation being responsible for the crime in his city. Several times coming out formally against legislation to allow citizens to carry handguns, as it was debated in the legislature. One night, one of his young officers was off duty, in another town, driving home late at night. He came to a railroad crossing, and had to wait for the passing train. Out of nowhere, a "black youth" jumped out with a gun, and attempted to pull him from his car. The off-duty officer pulled his own weapon and killed the carjacker, who had a long rap sheet of violent crimes. Thomas Wyndam had a revelation. He was a smart man, and he realised that, had that been the average, law-abiding citizen instead of an off-duty cop, it would have been a murder scene instead of a dead thug. From that day forward, he visibly and vocally supported and campaigned for the citizens' right to carry firearms for their personal protection. He lived to see it through to law in 1996. Since that time, violent crime has steadily decreased every year. Countless lives have been saved. There have not been any wild west shootouts. And a grand total of one (1) licensed handgun carrier has been prosecuted for misuse of his weapon in twelve years. So the numbers speak for themselves. Despite all the Northeast liberal hysteria from people who live in the slum states and just don't get it, none of their doomsday theories every bear out in a single state where the carry laws have been enabled. That's why more and more states are adopting these laws every year. And, as rapidly as these theories are being blown away (no pun intended), it's only a matter of time before the so-called "gun free zones" start to come down.
ERDoc Posted April 17, 2008 Posted April 17, 2008 I will start by saying that I have not read through all of this discussion so if I am being redundant just tell me to shut up and read the thread. That being said, academia is no place for weapons. School shootings are not the plague the media is sensationalizing them to be. They make the news because they are so extreme and infrequent. If they were as commonplace as some talking heads are making them out to be we would not see them on the news everytime they happened. Just from unscientific observations (mad by myself) it seems like the countries that have to most gun control have the least amount of problems and those that don't have gun control have the most problems. Maybe this should tell us something.
Dustdevil Posted April 18, 2008 Posted April 18, 2008 School shootings are not the plague the media is sensationalizing them to be. They make the news because they are so extreme and infrequent. If they were as commonplace as some talking heads are making them out to be we would not see them on the news everytime they happened. Spot on. Having worked in the news media for a decade, I cannot agree more with that observation. The more you hear about something on the boob tube, the less likely it is to be a real problem. That's why it's news. Just from unscientific observations (mad by myself) it seems like the countries that have to most gun control have the least amount of problems and those that don't have gun control have the most problems. Maybe this should tell us something. Unless you analyse the numbers, it doesn't really tell you anything. Violent crimes and riots are actually higher in Europe than in the U.S. Fewer shootings? Sure, but so what if you're still more likely to be a victim of a violent crime. And violent crime is on the rise in the U.K. In every state with concealed carry laws, it is on the steady decline. Again, you can't go making generalisations without the stats to support them.
spenac Posted April 18, 2008 Author Posted April 18, 2008 I will start by saying that I have not read through all of this discussion so if I am being redundant just tell me to shut up and read the thread. That being said, academia is no place for weapons. School shootings are not the plague the media is sensationalizing them to be. They make the news because they are so extreme and infrequent. If they were as commonplace as some talking heads are making them out to be we would not see them on the news everytime they happened. Just from unscientific observations (mad by myself) it seems like the countries that have to most gun control have the least amount of problems and those that don't have gun control have the most problems. Maybe this should tell us something. Mexico has some of the toughest gun control laws yet has some of the most violent crimes including gun related crimes. Concealed Carry Permits are actually a type of gun control. I disagree with having to register in order to carry my gun. Honestly those permits will allow the government to know who to start with when they start taking guns away from the people. They also are gun control in the sense of criminal history check, firearm safety, etc.
DwayneEMTP Posted April 18, 2008 Posted April 18, 2008 [it's true. Guns don't cause violence. However, their role as a tool in such violent acts can't be ignored. Would some of these events still have happened if guns were that much more difficult, or near impossible, to obtain? Mike, it's not my intention to call you out as I believe your post was perfectly clear that you're not taking a stand against guns...but it reveals a common thought of the anti gun crowd. So let me ask anyone opposed to guns this, in all earnestness. How do we remove guns from our society? If you can answer this convincingly, I give you my word that tomorrow I will pound my gun into a paper weight. I hate guns, but own one. Why? Because evil people own them as well...But I would truly celebrate the day that U.S. society became unarmed if only I knew that ALL of use were unarmed. How do we make that happen? Dwayne
Dustdevil Posted April 18, 2008 Posted April 18, 2008 ...I would truly celebrate the day that U.S. society became unarmed if only I knew that ALL of use were unarmed. That's easy to say when you're 6'3' and 250 pounds. What about the rest of us? What about my parents and grandparents? Take away their means of defence and you don't have a less violent society. You have Lord Of The Flies. No thanks. I'd rather us all be equalised by Mr. Glock than for the weak to be at the mercy of the thugs.
Eydawn Posted April 18, 2008 Posted April 18, 2008 Dwayne, the reason he didn't address it is because there is no solution. The assholes will always be able to procure firearms. I can build one from hardware store parts. The best we can do is regulate it, try to track it, and make sure that the badguys don't have access to anything nastier than the average citizen as much as possible... so that the average citizen isn't put at a disadvantage on the playing field from being a good citizen and following the law. I agree with Dust. I wouldn't be alive if it weren't for a Colt 45... and neither would my mother. If I repeat something I've posted before, I digress... but my mother was 8 months pregnant with yours truly, taking a bath, home alone, when someone invaded our home. Butt naked at the top of the stairs, she chambered a round in that hand cannon and yelled down at the intruder "I have a gun! Get out of my F*&*(ng house!" He left. If she hadn't had a gun, he would have been able to hurt her immensely. She was HUGE when she was pregnant with me and her joints were very loose. Not a chance. I'm for gun ownership. I'm living proof of the benefits of it. Wendy CO EMT-B
DwayneEMTP Posted April 18, 2008 Posted April 18, 2008 That's easy to say when you're 6'3' and 250 pounds. What about the rest of us? What about my parents and grandparents? Take away their means of defence and you don't have a less violent society. You have Lord Of The Flies. No thanks. I'd rather us all be equalised by Mr. Glock than for the weak to be at the mercy of the thugs. Who said anything about your Grandparents? I thought this was all about me? Of course you make a good point, and it also brings to the forefront why this can be such a polarized issue. I live on this beautiful little country street. I have a nodding acquaintance with my neighbors and if I heard them scream, would be there in a second, and I believe the opposite is also true. But if that is not the case in other people's areas, then I agree...equalization is necessary as long as evil and victimization exist... I guess I'll have to rethink this before I make my presentation to the World Council on Everything.... Dwayne
Recommended Posts