The resent attacks by terrorist in Mumbia are enough reason for me to believe we (law abiding citizens, that are capable of being trained in firearms defense) should be armed. The link is to an account of a photo journalist who was upset at armed police officers that refused to return fire.
I heard from my pastor that one of the people in the office complex in which he works (it is closer to his home than the church, so he works remote to the building) wanted to get a conceal carry license and obtain a firearm after hearing about the police not being willing to return fire. That might not be that remarkable … my pastor knows the man well, and knows he is not opposed to firearms from a moral position (he is also a minister) but he has a very personal aversion to guns. He was shot when he was young, and he gets the shakes around them. The minister knew there was a problem, but he figured he would have to get around and work through the aversion. The reasoning for such?
My pastor had at least some insight; if you are faced with a man with a rifle, then you certainly don’t want to be armed with just a pistol. The police were outgunned in this case. A really good pistol shooter might be able to take someone out at 60 or 70 feet, but an average shot with a rifle can take down a person at 150 yards (450 feet). A person defending themselves might be much more willing to open fire with a pistol if he is defending himself or his family, but even a police officer could understandibly not want to reveal his position and attract what would be near certain death.
Mumbia (all of India) has very strict gun control laws. Those laws gauranteed the terrorist an unarmed populous and the ability to shoot people like the proverbial “fish in a barrel”. The laws that are supposed to “protect the citizen” are in fact the reason for criminals being able to get away with murder (quite literally at times).
If we can train an 18-year-old to effectively carry fully automatic weapons, send them to wars, and expect them to use reasonable care in the use of the rifle they carry, we should be able to train every (law abiding, mentally fit) 25-year-old to carry a semi-automatic pistol, or even a rifle both appropriately and effectively. I’d rather be in a group of 50 well armed law-abiding citizens than in a place where guns are prohibited.
Tags: armed citizens, mumbia, terrorism
spmm,
In #38, you asked “Is there no way of getting guns out of gangs?”
Change that to drugs. How much has the country as a whole and every state and local government invested in keeping drugs out of the country and out of the hands of gangs (one of their biggest money makers)? We (the collective we) have been attempting to get drugs out of the hands of gangs for decades.
Tell you what, get illegal drug imports down to zero, then talk to me about guns. If you can’t control illegal drugs (or even illegal aliens, for that matter) then don’t even think that you can control illegal guns.
Act,
I’m going to disagree on driving a car as not being a right. The right to move about freely is a basic right. (Remember the 9th and 10th amendment?) In this society, an automobile is a necessary means of movement, and is therefor a basic human right. Once the government undertook the construction of highways, they created an equal justice under the law requirement as well. A person is not free who cannot move freely … the national highway system and eminent domain purchase for them are based on the right of movement. Ever since, the use of automobiles has been a right by virtue of their existence.
This is no different than the right to bear arms, in that before firearms were invented, the right to bear arms did not include firearms, but once they did come into existence, the right to own and use them came into existence as they were the most effective means of self-defense. It is the right to self-defense (both individually and against tyranny) that is the underlying foundational right. If firearms became as obsolete as a club (perhaps because of energy beam weapons becoming available) then the subsequent technology would be covered under the right.
The same is true for freedom of movement. Accepting that the right to drive is anything less than a basic human right is unacceptable. That does not mean that any restriction is unreasonable … I don’t believe a two year old child should drive (or own a gun for that matter). But, restrictions should only be those that are absolutely the minimum possible and only when a vital public interest is at stake, and no less restrictive means of achieving/protecting the vital interest of the state is possible.
Brian
Driving a car and owning a semiautomatic are rights but health care and marrying your partner if they happen to be of the same sex are not rights?
el jefe,
People carrying concealed weapons do not put you at risk, and in fact, those that carry concealed protect you and reduce your risk. Guns save lives.
If the students at Virginia Tech had been able to have guns, the likelihood is that many fewer people would have been killed by the active shooter.
The exact same thing happened in Colorado, only there were armed citizens in the church, and when the shooter realized that his suicide/murder could end up with his getting wounded instead of killed, he turned his own gun on himself (as he undoubtedly planned in the first place) and made sure he would not survive. How many lives were saved?
Charl Van Wyck faced the same kind of situation: terrorists entered the church, opened fire and throwing hand grenades. He crouched, pulled his revolver, returned fire and chased away the terrorists long before they had spent their ammunition. While the carnage was tragic (11 died, 58 wounded) it would have been much worse had he not been armed. They would have been firing unopposed into a church with over 200 in attendance, and many more would have died and many more would have been wounded.
Guns save lives. There are very few cases of a person who has a lawful right to carry using the weapon he carries unlawfully. You would be far safer with 5 law abiding citizen around you that carry a concealed firearm than you would be either alone or with 5 people around you that are unarmed.
Doing what is inherently wrong is never a right.
dans, the bottom line is that people who want stricter gun regulations do so because they see high levels of gun violence and they want a solution. Their interested in reducing crime not taking away rights of law abiding citizens. The 2nd amendment can best be safeguarded by addressing the real concerns of people who would be happy see strict regulations on guns. if we solve the gang problem, we remove one of the main pillars supporting the anti-gun folks arguments.
whatever the precise numbers, I don’t doubt that law abiding gun owners have been able to prevent crimes with guns, but those kinds of statistics are little comfort for people who hear gunshots in the night, every day see there’s a story about someone getting shot, every time there’s an argument between teens on the street someone ends up “flashing a piece” and calling their concerns irrational, etc. isn’t helpful either.
they see that guns increase the potency of gangs, as it were. without guns, gangs would be less effective in general …and if you wanted to prove to people living in the hood that guns don’t kill people by arming the gangbangers in their neighborhoods with chopsticks instead of guns, they’d probably jump at that opportunity!
also, the constitution doesn’t protect the right to self defense. I believe it is a right, but I also believe that access to health care is a right. The fact is that the constitution protects the right to bear arms for the sake of maintaining a well-regulated militia, yet never makes any mention of self defense as a right of any kind. The “guns as a means of self defense” argument and the constitution are separate issues.
Here’s an idea: anyone can buy a handgun, provided they’ve enlisted in the well-regulated militia, which any citizen could do, but would include thorough training/gun safety courses. why not?
Zimzo, health care IS a basic human right. As such, the government must not interfere with anyone’s exercise of that right.
“Here’s an idea: anyone can buy a handgun, provided they’ve enlisted in the well-regulated militia, which any citizen could do, but would include thorough training/gun safety courses. why not?”
Because they no longer exist. If you are saying that the States would be required to have such militias, and that any citizen could join (with the usual caveats of not being a criminal or mentally unstable, then that would be fine.
Without such State militias, your requirement is like saying that people must take a State-run driving course before getting a license, but the State does not offer the course.
Actually, I think such training should be required of EVERYONE.
“the constitution doesn’t protect the right to self defense. I believe it is a right….”
You are contradicting yourself. If it is a right, then the Constitution protects it via the IXth Amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
jefe,
the militia is regulated, not the guns, the guns are the militia enabler.
Dan,
I was going to spring Heller on jefe later.
SP
“the bottom line is that people who want stricter gun regulations do so because they see high levels of gun violence and they want a solution.”
That is the pretense, however the effectiveness of any regulations must be measured by the end result, and gun control has a very bad track record. I also believe that this is seen as low hanging fruit by many elected officials, i.e. crime is up not because I am failing at the job you elected me to do, but because we need more gun control. And then you have the Rosie Odonnel’s of the world who believe that only their bodyguards should be allowed to carry a firearm.
We must also consider there are many that want gun control owing to an irrational fear. Consider el hefe’s comments above that Plaxico Burress’s actions in NY endangered him, or that if I carry a pistol that also endangers him.
“anyone can buy a handgun, provided they’ve enlisted in the well-regulated militia, ”
The introductory clause does not limit the scope of the following statement unless it it explicitly stated so. Consider :
“When it is hot outside, your ice cream will melt.”
Does this mean your ice cream will only melt when it is hot outside ? No it does not.
ok, well I think I’ve made my point: People don’t want to ban guns so much as they want safe neighborhoods. Gun crime ought to be seen as the biggest threat to gun ownership, because it makes people more willing to support stricter gun laws.
Telling people that their fears are irrational, or writing their concerns off as pretense, is counterproductive.
…and why the unwillingness to accept that situations like Plaxico put people in danger. Of course they do! Having a handgun fall out of your waistband and accidentally discharge in a crowded place creates a very real danger for everyone in the area (namely, stray bullets) that wouldn’t exist if it had been, say, a chopstick that he had tucked into his waistband.
There’s also a logical problem with saying that anything can be used with with equally lethal effect (baseball bats, chopsticks, etc.) AND arguing that you need guns for self protection. Why do you need a gun, if a bat is just as effective? The fact is that guns are more deadly than other items, and their misuse represents a greater threat to public safety.
You seem to be at odds with Lovisa. She wants to limit the number of guns one can own based on “need.”
We are not simply TELLING people that their fears are irrational, we are showing them WHY their fears are irrational. We cannot base our laws on irrational fears; we must shed the light of truth on these fears, not coddle them.
“Telling people that their fears are irrational, or writing their concerns off as pretense, is counterproductive.”
They told me in Psych 101 it was a good thing to talk about these things SP.
“…and why the unwillingness to accept that situations like Plaxico put people in danger.”
If you are >= 200 miles away from this, how does it put you in danger SP ? Please explain this one to me..
” i don’t want people carrying concealed weapons, it puts me at risk.”
Your sanity and your credibility were somewhat questionable until this stupidity left your fingertips.
If you are being assaulted and your life becomes threatened, and someone who understands the escalation of the use of deadly force is right there, you are as safe as in your mother’s arms, dumbass.
Conversely, you can call the police (if your hands arn’t broken by your attacker…and if you have an additional fifteen minutes.)
bearing arms is for the purpose of a militia in the protection of the state, regulation.
heller? our generations’s plessy v. ferg., it’s wrong.
The purpose is irrelevant — the right remains with the People.
It does not matter how many guns that you take away from the law abiding citizens, it will not make much of a difference, because the criminals will always get their guns from somewhere.
After Billy Boy closed hordes of our military bases, he leased one in California to the Chinese. The Chinese were using it to store shipments of guns that they were going to sell to street gangs nationwide.
I remembered the specifics of the Chinese incident, but apparently the lease did not go through after the company was found to be bringing the guns here in a company owned ship by the ATF.
Here is more on the story and other Billy Bombers. The information in this article is from 1999 and later. As you can see nothing ever got better:
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA259.html
The internet is filled with his romance with the Chinese and other countries.
I am buying Jefe a gun for Christmas.
joe, i think you’d be buying me a ticket to b*more city jail. i don’t think i’ve said anything to deserve that.
el jefe,
Even if Maryland you can own a gun. You might have a hard time getting a concealed carry permit, but owning a gun is not illegal. You might have to do silly unconstitutional things like register the gun, but that doesn’t make owning it illegal.
ej
Heller is the most recent, and it informs the prior decisions. It specifically rejects the idea that ownership of guns is only for the purpose of the militia — the argument DC was attempting to make — and that the right is for individuals.
Jack,
Hate to tell you this, but if you live in Virginia, and you are law abiding male between 18 and 55, you *are* a member of the militia.
SPMM,
One of the reasons the 2nd was put into the constitution is the weak minded people that don’t recognize their own responsibility for their own preservation.
It is a non sequitur to think that stricter gun laws would reduce crime. It is false logic, and the constitution is in place to prevent the weak minded segment of society (sometimes referred to as the majority) from being able to force weak minded restrictions upon those that have more sense. If people want a solution to crime, they should obtain training, and carry a gun themselves instead of attempting to restrict the rights of others and hide their heads in the sand. If the bad guys knew the vast majority of the people were armed, and trained in the use of arms, there would be far less crime.
Those that don’t care about the laws *will* have guns, just like those that don’t care about the law obtain drugs, or enter the country illegally. It is pure folly to think that outlawing guns would reduce violence — it would increase it. It might shift the violence to other forms, but I would rather know that law abiding citizens around me are armed than think that a 6′4″ bully could grab a chunk of 2×4 and bludgeon people to death with no recourse for me to defend my wife and children. If I am armed, even a professional athlete would have no real advantage over a well armed, well trained citizen. And if nearly everyone were well armed and well trained the level of crime would go down.
As to the constitution protecting the right to self-defense, it does in the 9th amendment, along with the vast quantity of case law precedent over the past 400 years going back to English common law before the country was even founded.
Your idea of “provided they’ve enlisted in the well-regulated militia” was debunked by Heller.
If everyone were well-armed and well-trained, there would be mass carnage. Anyone with even a small grudge would get angry and start popping people, then get popped back, innocent bystanders would get hit and start their own popping.
You are obviously totally deranged and watched much too much Rambo when you were young.
The reason we have so many gun deaths in the U.S. isn’t because we have more criminals, it’s because we have too many people that think like you, that are less evolved (of course, you don’t believe in that, do you).
“If everyone were well-armed and well-trained, there would be mass carnage. Anyone with even a small grudge would get angry and start popping people, then get popped back, innocent bystanders would get hit and start their own popping.”
An example where this has occurred please ?
This is the utter nonsense that is thrown out every time a state considers shall issue. Contrary to the ravings of this madman, It hasn’t happened anywhere.
High Noon was a movie sanity.. get a grip..
Sanity,
you are dead wrong. the whole this will become a shooting gallery is 180 degrees away from reality. I addressed this in my comment last night.
http://novatownhall.com/2008/12/10/should-bra-have-our-dollars/#comment-16938
take a gander. History is against you in this regard.
“it’s because we have too many people that think like you”
jacob, suspect sanity is just being a richard..
Dan,
calling Sanity names because he calls us names is sinking down to his level. Don’t do that. Never fight an idiot on his turf, he will beat you with experience every time.
“calling Sanity names because he calls us names is sinking down to his level”
Friday is casual day, and I do allow myself a few indulgences..
Liberals are immune to facts and reason. Dan was just trying speak in a way that inSanity could understand.
Brian,
Comment #52. The law says that it is a priviledge. Can you buy a rocketship or ride the space shuttle because it exists? That is governed usually by the government (who will shoot your butt down if they see you doing an illegal launch). Driving can be regulated or restricted as seen fit. We’ll have to disagree on this one.
ACT, get my email ?
“Gun crime ought to be seen as the biggest threat to gun ownership, because it makes people more willing to support stricter gun laws.”
“also, the constitution doesn’t protect the right to self defense.”
“Having a handgun fall out of your waistband and accidentally discharge ”
This is the ignorance that we all should be very scared about. Liberals want stricter gun laws so that the majority of the citizens (who know right from wrong) will be punished. Liberals interpret the Constitution (or ignore it) to meet there needs. “LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS …..”-seems pretty obvious to me. And being how the gun manufacturers cannot keep or are liable for someone who discharges one of their firearms because they PULLED THE TRIGGER when the gun wasn’t safed……
Bear with me here. I’m going to take you on a quick trip to the edge of the universe. D.C. schools are now going to make a mandatory minimum grade of 50 so that it doesn’t discourage those students that have a poor test or miss a homework assignment. This is going to make them try harder, right? We have always rewarded people that manage their money well and we have institutions that loan money only to people with good credit, right? And because a guy in Baltimore is scared of ANYONE with a gun because it puts his life at risk (what about just LIVING in Baltimore) or the thing in Michigan that wants you to have your rights but deal with the criminal element so have more restrictions on you for what someone else does, this would be reasonable, right?
I think that we should all stop paying taxes because of the corrupt politicians mis-use of the tax-payers monies. I also believe that I should win (not maybe) the million dollar lottery once in my life. These things would make ME feel better.
I got an idea. It’s going to seem nuts or drug induced but here it goes. How about we get a campaign to teach and take personnal responsibility for ourselves? Maybe throw in something on ethics, morals, right and wrong. Make parenting something of importance. Just an idea.
Sanity,
Your statement “Anyone with even a small grudge would get angry and start popping people” is total hogwash. I’ve been well armed and well trained for many years. I haven’t “popped” anyone and hope I never have to shoot a gun for the purpose of defense. My brother has been armed most of his life. He has never killed anyone (to my knowledge). The police in this country are well armed (and I hope well trained — though some better than others). They are no different from anyone else other than the particular “job” they have … they don’t have superior intellect, morals, or anything else. Sometimes they do shoot people, and I’m sure that most of the time it is fully justified.
The evidence is against your statement. It doesn’t happen in a police station. It doesn’t happen in an army barracks. It doesn’t happen in gun clubs.
Stop being so reactionary … it makes you look stupid.