More Road Rage Murders

[Dmitri]

the screwdriver v. gun argument isn't based on a good analogy. Ok, pistols are no more dangerous than water: both can kill you. Tell that to the mother who has lost her child to random gunfire.

Well, following that sort of emotional note in your argument then, -- cars kill way, way more children than guns. You want to drive? Tell it to the mother who lost her child in a car accident.

[Ian]

No kid of a responsible gun owner and a good parent would EVER go and shoot anyone. EVER, I guarantee you that. These kids' parents were either bad parents, or irresponsible re. guns, or both.

What does it matter? Irresponsible people live in the same society as you and I. Their kids go to the same schools as your kids.

Did you know the US is world leader in school shootings? If that title belonged to any other country, people would just assume it's because that country's ass-backwards and uncivilized.

Funny, huh? Funny how you're more likely to be murdered in the US than in the freaking Middle East!

My views on guns: I like guns. A lot. Makarov PM, G-19, G-26, AK-47, and HK mp7 are my favorites.

But I'm not so naive to think you just give "good guys" guns and that's it! Problem solved.

If you want to draw, fire, retain, disarm... you have to practice until you can practice no longer. Thousands upon thousands of reps. Instead people just buy guns, spend maybe every Sunday at the range, probably don't keep it locked up properly and they think that makes them safe. Nope, they just become more of a liability to themselves, their families and their country.

Counter-terrorist units do good work with guns, and so do the police. Sometimes even the military. So yes I believe guns have their place.

[strawdog]

The real issue for me is the education of the public regarding guns and gun ownership. I feel that many who legally buy guns are not well trained in its use and not well disciplined and or not responsible enough to own such a powerful weapon. I'd be nervous too if I knew that joe stupid&scared just bought a gun. Unfortunately America is full of joe stupid&scared. They might be stupid and scared, but they still have the right to self-preservation. There are too many candidates for the Darwin Awards in America. The bad part is when these Darwin Award candidates take out other people. That's when other people get more nervous about gun ownership and become reactionary and call for an out right ban instead on focusing on educating joe to be not stupid or scared.

[Steve James]

Yeah, it's an emotional argument; but, those individual mothers are why people want guns off their streets. And, the idea of need to prevent gun violence happening to one's family is usually (always) at the core of the gun advocacy argument --but it's just as emotional. Moreso, because it is not being presented (here) based on past experience.

Anyway: here's the argument I hear, without any emotion.

Granted: in high crime areas, people should have guns to protect themselves.
Granted: there are lots of guns in high crime areas.
Ergo: these should be low crime areas.

[Dmitri]

Instead people just buy guns, spend maybe every Sunday at the range, probably don't keep it locked up properly and they think that makes them safe. Nope, they just become more of a liability to themselves, their families and their country.

I agree. It's a very good point, and it goes back, again, to the same thing I said many times before -- people don't care to be educated or responsible. THAT'S what needs to be addressed more than anything else. The govt. should dismantle agencies like ATF and use the (enormous amounts of) money released from that to spend on educating the public, promoting responsibility, free workshops on gun ownership, handling, storage, how to teach kids, etc., etc.
I know, it'll never happen. But that's the right thing to do IMO, not put money into reinforcement of prohibition. This country had one prohibition already, in the 20s -- look how well that worked out.

the idea of need to prevent gun violence happening to one's family is usually (always) at the core of the gun advocacy argument --but it's just as emotional.

I don't see what's emotional about that one, and no it's not always about an ARMED intruder -- it's about ANY intruder. Mostly armed, but not always. It's also about riot-like situations, etc. It's not about "preventing gun violence", it's about "preventing any violence".

Anyway: here's the argument I hear, without any emotion.

Granted: in high crime areas, people should have guns to protect themselves.
Granted: there are lots of guns in high crime areas.
Ergo: these should be low crime areas.

Well, that's not my argument. Mine is simple, constitution specifically says that govt. should not infringe upon the right of the people to bear arms -- that's all there is to it. We either follow the constitution on that one, or we don't. (We haven't been following on a lot of other issues though, it's not like this is the only one... so I guess I'm being an idealist.)

[Steve James]

If you've been mugged, robbed, etc; there's no doubt you'd have a legitimate reason to feel the need to be armed.
If your child had been shot, you'd have a legitimate reason to want to see guns off the street.
Both would still be emotional arguments that come to contadictory conclusions.

If, otoh, you only know of people whose homes have been invaded, or whose children have been accidentally killed in drivebys, then you are making decisions based on fear of "what might happen." You said that you haven't heard gunshots in Atlanta; well, I haven't heard any recently in the Bronx.
To me, the question becomes, "If I have a gun, am I safer?" The answer is "maybe"... "if".

Ok, the Constitutional argument is valid. But the police are way more like a "militia" than the indvidual citizen. We also saw in Katrina that, when it comes down to it, police are just citizens with families who live in the affected communities. The same goes for solidiers, sailors, marines, guardsmen and air force personnel..

[Darthwing Teorist]

To me, the question becomes, "If I have a gun, am I safer?" The answer is "maybe"... "if".

Yes. Good questions Steve. I love guns too, but this is another example how armed guards have been robbed in spite of their weapons and their training:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/0807 ... ured_truck

[Dmitri]

To me, the question becomes, "If I have a gun, am I safer?" The answer is "maybe"... "if".

Agreed. The decision to carry or not is a personal one, based on a lot of factors... And if you do, it not only doesn't guarantee better safety, but it could in fact be the cause of your own death, should the mugger grab it from you somehow for example...
However the govt. should stay the hell out of those personal decisions.

[Ben]

I have a few firearms and I don't carry. I know many people that do and thats cool. I feel pretty confident about getting out of trouble in the outside word but if somebody comes to my home where my family lives... Its just an entirely different situation and I'm not playing around.

[edededed]

Anyway, I want some kind of weapon to carry at least...

Sling? (Won't get caught in metal detectors)
Iron bar?
Chain?

[Ben]

Be the weapon...

[Finny]

Be the weapon...

Straight up.

[juz]

And on the flipside, counter-terrorist units can't clear rooms with screwdrivers.

that would be a sight!

[cerebus]

And on the flipside, counter-terrorist units can't clear rooms with screwdrivers.

that would be a sight!

I've seen Steven Seagal do it with a steak knife...