The tragic shooting at a movie theater in Aurora, Colo., on July 20 has reignited a long-running debate about gun control and laws allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons. Some argue that armed civilians in the movie theater could have mitigated Friday's massacre, whereas others believe that more guns could have led to even more confusion and greater loss of life.
In fact, more guns than ever are in citizens' hands today. Although a lower percentage of the U.S. adult population owns them, those who do own several; the average number of guns per owner is up from 4.1 per person in 1994 to 6.9 in 2004.
Growing roughly in tandem with rising gun ownership is the increase of more lenient regulations allowing people to carry concealed weapons. These laws are up markedly. Concealed-carry laws can be of the "shall issue" or "may issue" variety; in "shall issue" states, law enforcement must issue a permit if certain criteria are met, whereas in "may issue" states, law enforcement has discretion. Colorado is a "shall issue" state, although some businesses, such as the movie theater where the shooting occurred, prohibit guns on their premises.
More states are also considering legislation that would permit the carrying of concealed weapons in bars, churches and on college campuses, despite recent tragedies. Both trends are worrisome because they place more hidden guns in more public places. Whether lenient gun-control laws contribute to an increase in gun violence is a hotly contested issue, but research to determine the root of such associations is necessary so that lawmakers can protect citizens' lives as well as their rights.
Graphic by Jen Christiansen
See what we're tweeting about
95 Comments
Add CommentWhile I trust that your facts are accurate, I disagree, however,with your opinion that "Both trends are worrisome because they place more hidden guns in more public places."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI will not rewrite this statement, but the presence of hidden guns in public places is not dependent on the two factors you cite. The presence of hidden guns in public places is dependent only on the desire of people to bring hidden guns into public places. In my opinion, the same people whom would have brought hidden guns into public places for illegal purposes before these two factors changed are the same people who would bring them now.
I'm not sure why it's so hard to understand the fact that people that want to harm other people will break the law. Those that go through the act of obtaining a conceal carry permit are not the same ones that commit these gross acts of violents. The responsible gun owners are not the ones killing each other on the streets at night.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisForsythkid: or perhaps some would-be heroes would have drawn and started shooting and even more people would have died in the crossfire. There's a slight difference between shooting targets at a gun range and shooting at an armored person in a dark, packed theater full of panicked people scrambling and climbing over each other to get out. To top it off, there was a smoke screen obscuring view.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy, in a fact-based article, would concealed weapons be described as "worrisome," other than to interject the author's bias? As for the subject at hand, it is seldom the law abiding gun owners we have to worry about. It doesn't seem the no gun policy at the theater in Aurora was very effective.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisForsythkid,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAny kind of straight thinking would let you know that having "a few sane and normal people been carrying weapons at that theater" ('normal' meaning untrained in high-stress combat situations) would lead to inaccurate and ill-planned shooting of the surrounding people and each other. There is simply not a question that this would have lead to more people being injured and killed. This is the real world, not the wishful-thinking world. How is this not obvious?
It would be silly, if not so tragic, that this question is even asked. The accumulated cases show an overwhelming number of misuses of guns (accidental and intentional deaths) compared to cases of valid and effective self defense. These are simply the real numbers. Those who defend increased ownership and carrying are selfish and deluded (hubristically believing _they_ will be the one who only uses a gun for good). Fact: On average, the addition of a gun increases the lethality of a situation for not only for an aggressor, but also (and overwhelmingy) for the 'defender'. Why base policy on an egotistical, delusional fantasy?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat use is this information when you don't provide statistics for gun-related crime in the states highlighted? Without that essential information, we're just left speculating. If you could demonstrate that gun crime has become either better or worse since the introduction of these laws, then we have something to talk about. Without those numbers, these infographics mean nothing, and the thoughts of everyone here - mine included - would be speculation, no doubt linked to biased political preferences.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe author asks if concealed carry gun laws increase assults and then goes on to show that both concealed gun carry laws are increasing and that gun owners own more guns then before. Didn't even attempt to answer the question and is making assumptions on increased gun ownership.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeople who are gun owners and collecters buy more guns when they think politicians are going to illegalize them. There is two reasons for this. Some hope prices will go up to resale the guns for a profit. Others who were waiting until they had more money want to buy the gun before the price skyrockets. Spend a little time with gun owners and gun shops and see why people are buying more guns. Democratic president = illegalize guns.
Its not obvious because its not true, case after case where a person uses their concealed weapon to protect themselves that it is done without innocents being hurt, it happens almost on a daily basis. You just had the successful shooting at the internet cafe where a 71 year old man took on two armed persons, one with a gun, one with a bat and chased them out of the store with no innocents being hurt. Check the actual number of ccw shootings, you will fine citizen have more shoots than police with little collateral damage.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf this theater did not have a no guns policy, they would likely been up to 6 persons there that would be carrying as a reasonable guess. The shooter was in front of the screen, people were ducking which would leave perfect line of site to protect the crowd. Most shooter wont sit there during when someone returns fire, they run. This policy is why he had no worries about getting shot and could shoot at will.
The correlation is clear. Why are you Americans trying to justify this insanity? I shudder to think what people must deal with in places where a concealed gun is legal. The fear that a silly argument over a fender-bender (for example) may result in bullets flying must be paralyzing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrue, there will always be criminals willing to commit violent crime. Why would you want to make it easier for them to do so?
CJY,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSome of your facts and your assumptions are incorrect. The shooter is described as wearing a tactical vest. The term "ballistic cloth" is also used. If accurate, then this is not body armor. This is a vest used to hold ammunition, extra magazines, and other accessories.
Even if it were police issue body armor, the wearer if shot would feel as if he were struck with a baseball bat by a very hefty guy. Some even describe the feeling as being hit in the chest by a sledge hammer. A police issue bulletproof vest may have stopped the bullets from punching through and entering the body, but the impact is still transferred to the wearer's body. The bullets don't just bounce off, magically erasing all that kinetic energy.
In my opinion, if there were someone in that theater who was legally carrying a firearm and if that person would have shot and hit the intruder, he would have been severely wounded or killed if he was only wearing a tactical vest. If he were wearing a police issue Kevlar vest, he would have been knocked down with a good chance of broken ribs or killed if hit in the head.
If the defender missed, the perpetrator may have been distracted, allowing people to escape through the exits. Something they were unable to do with him targeting anyone who approached the exits.
In terms of hitting an innocent bystander, most of the descriptions I have read or heard describe the people all running to get as far as possible from the attacker. It is doubtful anyone was standing close enough to be hit by accident.
Lastly, most states require a defensive shooting course in order to get a concealed carry permit. Those classes do cover the topic of ensuring you have a clear line of fire. It may not be an ideal situation, but I think the innocents would have had a better chance of escaping if the attacker had been engaged by a defender.
Lampora,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWatch this video. This was in the news just the week prior to the Aurora shooting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVLJ7WgIVQ0
Also, check your facts. Most of the quasi statistics you are quoting have been refuted in reputable research and many facts that you reference are merely common restatements of editorial opinions rather than actual statistics from reputable sources.
What does concealed-carry have to do with the Colorado shootings? If you want to make a correlation between lenient gun-control laws and violence, why don't you do a study about how open-carry would have been a better deterrent. I guess the virtues of prevention leading to a non-event wouldn't get much attention. Still, you left your headline unanswered ... does legal concealed-carry contribute to assault? To answer to that question, a lawbreaker cares not about getting a license, and will assault regardless. In addition, the amount of violent psychosis in the population will not disappear whether we have lax gun laws or not. The better question is this: would you rather some stranger be able to defend you, even if it means they lose their life trying?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere probably was some people armed in the theater. Being armed and having the will and ability to deploy deadly force... are two different things. GK
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLampora,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo some fact checking, mass murders similar to the aurora shooting have happened almost every year for the past 10 years (which is as far back as I checked). You will be surprised to discover that the majority of these crimes have occurred in countries with very strict gun control laws. The U.S. is not any more or less susceptible in my opinion.
http://www.policeone.com/active-shooter/articles/5841755-Timeline-Mass-shootings-around-world/
Unfortunately, there will always be smart, but unbalanced or evil people who will find a way to kill others. It is no surprise that once they decide to kill, obeying gun laws, or any laws for that matter, is not on their list of priorities.
Or more more "normal" people in reactions of the moment would be up for 2nd degree murder. Of course many of the most dangerous people don't think they are anything but normal and they too will be packing more heat. I am not afraid of being assaulted by a virtually non-existent "terrorists" in America who are a statistically irrelevant threat to my daily life, but a traffic accident terrifies...who knows if a road rage crazed gun crazy will emerge who tells all who listen how "law abiding" they are. Oops, sorry, but come on it was just once...after all which happens more...a good blood stirring gun fight to the death...or what should have been just a boring traffic accident.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHe had full body armor, a shot gun, an assault rifle, two pistols and apparently a gas mask and two cannisters of tear gas. Wanna bet who wins? What the extra body count would be? That’s as stupid as thinking a "freedom loving" individual who takes arms against the United States of America is really going to a win a fight against the military in all out combat. Dangerous fairy tales for gullible people and psychopaths.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'll just quote Thomas Sowell:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo countries with strong gun control laws have lower murder rates? Only if you cherry-pick the data.
Britain is a country with stronger gun control laws than the United States, and lower murder rates. But Mexico, Russia and Brazil are also countries with stronger gun control laws than the United States -- and their murder rates are much higher than ours. Israel and Switzerland have even higher rates of gun ownership than the United States, and much lower murder rates than ours.
Even the British example does not stand up very well under scrutiny. The murder rate in New York has been several times that in London for more than two centuries -- and, for most of that time, neither place had strong gun control laws. New York had strong gun control laws years before London did, but New York still had several times the murder rate of London.
It was in the later decades of the 20th century that the British government clamped down with severe gun control laws, disarming virtually the entire law-abiding citizenry. Gun crimes, including murder, rose as the public was disarmed.
Meanwhile, murder rates in the United States declined during the same years when murder rates in Britain were rising, which were also years when Americans were buying millions more guns per year.
The real problem, both in discussions of mass shootings and in discussions of gun control, is that too many people are too committed to a vision to allow mere facts to interfere with their beliefs, and the sense of superiority that those beliefs give them.
Any discussion of facts is futile when directed at such people. All anyone can do is warn others about the propaganda.
The National Academy of Sciences did a review of concealed carry laws and crime and fund there was little evidence to support either the claim that they reduce crime or increase gun violence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do not know if there has been a similar review of assault weapons bans. However, there is no reason someone couldn't support concealed carry and a ban on assault weapons. If the Batman shooter did not have a rapid fire rifle with a 100 round clip someone in the audience would have had a better chance of stopping him.
I think there is little state gun control measures can do since guns flow easily across state lines. Strong national gun control laws might make a difference but the gun lobby is too strong. One possible compromise is to allow assault weapons but require they be stored at a secure shooting range. There is no need to keep such weapons at home.
In a crowded theatre with many law-abiding strangers carry guns and trying to kill the bad guy, nobody knows the "good guys" from the "bad guys." Why would you? --multiple people could be involved in the crime. Everything is not observed by the "good guys" after they initially take cover (which is the first instinct). It becomes a shoot first, ask questions later mentality. Why would it not? -- when people in the chaos just want to survive and/or be a hero.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI believe a man carry a gun in Tucson 2011 spoke of this incomplete info problem. He believed a man who wrestled the gun from Loughner was the shooter. Fortunately, the chaos was over and he decided not to shoot the man who was not pointing the gun at anyone (i.e. not in an offensive posture).
I have never understood how people believe in utopian societies that don't account for human nature (irrational emotion-based thought, incomplete information, etc). People have similar dillusional fantasies when advocating for economic systems. Communism and libertarianism are systems designed for saints, which there are few.
Wake up!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe impetus that got those laws promulgated was
the proof, through FBI crime figures, that they C. carry
reduced violent crime, supported by decreases in such crimes after the new Laws came into effect in their various areas..
You did a real good job outlining where the laws exist, but produced absolutely no data to support your (politically motivaed?), conjecture.
The 'research' for which you call, has been done.
Wake up! What is your motivation here?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe impetus that got those laws promulgated was
the proof, through FBI crime figures, that the existing concealed carry laws reduced violent crime, supported
by decreases in such crimes after the new Laws came into effect in their various areas.
You did a real good job outlining where the laws exist, but produced absolutely no data to support your(politically motivaed?), conjecture that they now suddenly increase crime.
The 'research' for which you call, has been done.
Mike, As I understood, the police found a 100 round clip in his car or apartment. The shooter used a semi-automatic pistol to do the shooting in the theater.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf he had used Timothy McVeigh's method, he would have killed scores more without ever firing a single round.
I find it interesting that the source of the statistics is the LEGAL COMMUNITY AGAINST GUN VIOLENCE. Apparently there are not constitutional lawyers amongst them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Second Amendment to the Constitution prohibits the government from denying citizens their inalienable right to self defense. The authors of the Constitution understood that the human right to self defense is inalienable, and that the government should not have the power to deny it's citizens their human rights.
Numerous rulings have upheld the Second Amendment.
As I see it, the problem is not concealed carry permits that lead to an increase in gun violence, it is the sheer proliferation of guns that becomes the enemy. The problem with lax gun laws is that allows mentally unbalanced people to collect guns and ammunition like they were baseball cards. I have met half a dozen or more people with extensive gun collections that if I were issuing permits I wouldn't allow them to own a pea shooter.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne man who lived next door to me on Oahu used to run around his yard with a 45 six shooter strapped to his waste with nothing else but a pair of swim trunks. He had dozens of guns hanging on the walls and half of them were loaded. There were three other people living in his house that had access to these guns and one of them was a known felon. Now, would you want this nut dating your daughter?
Case in point, Dick Cheney has a gun collection of hundreds of rifles and handguns. His karma caught up with him one day when he shot his own lawyer by accident while he was target shooting planted pheasants on a private ranch. Did he just have too many guns and the odds of an accident finally caught up with Dick? Would you give that nut a permit to carry a gun?
The fact is that too many guns in a personal collection should be a red flag that that person is not just interested in protecting his or her home or them self. They are obsessive people like collectors of venomous snakes that don't care what happens to the man killers when they die or when they dump them back into society. They are the ones most likely to go on a shooting rampage one day.
I say issue the permits, but profile the nuts that feel the need to own more then a few hand guns or any assault rifle and especially the ones that buy thousands of rounds of ammunition.
These people are the future Jokers of America.
There is another "fact" that has not been addressed in the authors analysis, the population has grown and the number of guns bought should be tracked according to population growth. I would be interested to see comparisons of unwarranted attacks in relation to population increase. Do we really have more nuts running around or is it the fact that media makes it easier to know about them? Maybe we will never know that comparison because of poor reporting 100 years ago, but I would be willing to bet that there were just as many crazy people with guns back then as now.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually ,..."NO";
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSeems since say ,"1980" on the approx: America or Americans have been intentionally liquifieing the USA Federal Government and of course the USA "Declaration of Independence"[signed by one of my "Great,Great,Etc.Granfathers,"Oliver Wolcott " and Judge on CONN.1776],by using USA State "nonsense Laws" by the will of the idiots whom are "Let's pretend to not understand reality or normalcies" ,etc. or "Be Stupid and Do What You're Told ,lol" ...And also "Endlessly Touting "Constitutionalities"
,etc.[Government Rights].............
All the Laws ,Bill of Rights of the Citizens should never change since "July 04,1976" as Gerald Rudolph Ford ,Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller and the infamous 17 yr old adult at that time "James Leonard Wolcott" Sole "Still Living Owner" of all the Brand Names,Logos ,Buisness ,etc. of "James Leaonard Wolcott Corporate Trust United States of America" ,[ie: Colt ,Smith & Wesson ,Barretta ,etc.,etc.,etc..]...
All mentioned in all those infamous "Corporate Trust Manuals" listing "ALL" the "Solely Owned ,Former Corporations" since June 1975 ,and no Shareholders[alot of Former],No Directors or Board thereof,No Executives ,No Unions[ie: AT&T,Chevy,etc,etc.]
and so on.................
One by true Law and Understanding can "Kill another Pertson in self Defense ,and not an USA Police Officers Governing Rules for themselves of "Equal Force"[thus one burgalar,car theft ,animal an childid abuser ,etc,etc. during or just after the fact ,etc.,etc.]........
And who the hell cares what any USA State Law has had or has to say since "JULY 04,1976" when all USA State Governments were all Dissolved of any authority to write,legislate,
mandate,arrest,convict,etc.under said same laws..
Gerald Rudolph Ford was still the USA President by %75 of the popular Citizens Votes along with Nel;son A.Rockefeller,etc. upto Say about Oct. or so 1979 ..."The time when other not so wealthy Fords and Rockefellrs ,etc.,etc. actuiallky conspired in fact had thier own"Murdered" on said year!
You have to remember and understand that "Ford Motor Co." ,"Standard,etc.Oil" have 'ALL" been Solely Owned by one
still living "Mr.James Leonard Wolcott" Born June 17,1959 on Great Barrington,Mass..and no wherelse.............
Weird thing for me was to read a social issue from a science magazine
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEven if a person there was carring that does not mean they would of had a shot. Much like When Gifford's was shot there was an armed person there who said there wasn't time to get a shot off. If I were a person carrying in that theater and couldn't get a shot off I wouldn't want the world to know because people would always ask why I didn't shoot or call me a coward etc...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhere is the published evidence in a reputable peer-reviewed journal?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI see a lot of subjective thoughts in this article...this is not science, but junk science and emotion.
It's here: "More Guns, Less Crime" by John Lott
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile there are some debates about some of the statistics in this book, it pretty much puts to rest the notion that outlawing guns reduces crime.
singing flea..."I say issue the permits, but profile the nuts that feel the need to own more then a few hand guns or any assault rifle..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI own one assault rifle that is used for pest control. Feral hogs cause a tremendous amount of crop, pasture, top soil and environmental damage. The best gun for controlling them is an assault rifle. I've tried other guns, and one simply cannot kill as many of these pests with them.
But thanks for letting people trying to save their livelihoods by using a gun you disapprove of that we are all "nuts".
How can you suggest a correlation between the number of concealed carry permits and assaults, then not give any statistics on assaults or even on the general crime rates of these areas? I expect more facts and less obvious political bias on Scientific American, particularly after such a sensationalist headline.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFigures never lie, but liars often figure.
Thank you. My sentiments exactly.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe reason for mass killings are not because of the gun laws, concealed carry, and all the other psychopathic rantings of the right, but because of the attitude that such gun laws represent. The thrill of the kill, the desire to see enemies everywhere, that fact that today's hero-worship of the "make my day" crowd reflects that those who support and advocate such violent behavior are making up for not being a real men.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is the attitude of the wuss that is driving this seemingly "manly" desire. These same folks have no command or control or even influence over their own lives. They know that. Guns are an attempt to compensate for not being the king in any forum. They are cornered rats, nothing more.
These gun proponents, like the x-athletes -- the gladiator class, are hollow beings, throwing adult tantrums and using guns and bravado for there being nothing there.
A written test, the MMPI [Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory] can identify sociopaths, schizophrenics and other insane persons before they cause destruction. The MMPI is a written test that is machine-gradeable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEverybody should have to take the MMPI in high school. Any background check is clearly incomplete if it does not include an MMPI. Why is it that "The tragic shooting at a movie theater in Aurora, Colo., on July 20 has reignited a long-running debate about gun control and laws allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons."? "The tragic shooting" should have reignited a debate about the lack of insanity identification. I heard a psychologist or psychiatrist on CNN say that schizophrenics are not dangerous "If they are on their medication." A very important caveat. The shooter in Aurora, Colorado was clearly identifiable as schizophrenic by the MMPI.
As for gun control, it works. Just ask Hitler. In those holocaust movies on TV I noticed one thing: Jews who owned firearms lived longer than Jews who did not own firearms. I sat on the fence for years before those movies came out. The holocaust is what gun control laws are really about.
Wow this topic is nearly as vicious as climate change. It is often argued by the gun lobby that guns don't kill people, but it is people that kill people. The same might be said for poison nerve gas or atomic weapons, maybe we should allow licensed people to have them as well? The point is that if people have them (guns,gas whatever) someone will use them. However the issue really is the growing tendency to violence and over-reaction that seems to be becoming more prevalent in modern society. Allow a person in an increasingly violent society a modern weapon and you will get what has happened and will continue to happen untill we change to a more peacefull means of settling disputes etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you don't think people are becoming more intense just re-read some of the comments in the replys in this disscussion! Or many other internet forums for that matter.
"Feral hogs cause a tremendous amount of crop, pasture, top soil and environmental damage. The best gun for controlling them is an assault rifle."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFeral hogs are a huge problem where I live too. There is no need to blast any animal to bits with multiple rounds from an AR15. That's nothing but a sick excuse to play with your toy. If you can't kill a hog with one round from a hunting rifle you are a lousy shot and have no business pulling the trigger.
If you kill multiple pigs do you make use of the meat? I doubt it. People that do that don't have the gumption to do it right. They don't care to cull the drove for future food, they just want to kill them all.
I don't even use a gun to control any wild pigs that invade my garden. I use a pig trap, fatten them up and have a luau. You can kill one with a well placed shot from a 22 rifle.
No self respecting hunter needs a semiautomatic rifle to hunt. In fact, any real hunter knows a bolt action or lever action rifle is more powerful, reliable and accurate then a gas action semiautomatic.
This trash does not qualify as Science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"... There is simply not a question that this would have lead to more people being injured and killed ..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn other words, you are unwilling to debate the subject.
Assuming of course that you are shooting at the crazy guy and not some one else. Is it comforting to know that in every crowd there are a dozen folks armed and ready to take out any shooters or the antichrist? A complex issue but when people want to kill people, well guns are the best way to do it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank goodness I'm not an American. You don't trust each other at all. What a way to live, paranoia about who can shoot you quite legally at any time, or maybe not.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm British. I have no worry at all about not being able to shoot a human being just in case I'm under threat. You really do deserve your own fate, in somebody elses hands.
I conceal carry daily. I am also highly trained in the proper use and handling of firearms. That said, I'm just one man but if 2-3 others(there were 4 military personnel present) had taken cover and returned fire I assure you the body count would have been lower and mostly likely the attacker among them. His body armor was junk, my handgun would go straight through, it will penetrate up to Class 3a body armor. A heavy kevlar vest with ceramic/steel plates inside. It's better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have one.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI conceal carry daily. I am also highly trained in the proper use and handling of firearms. That said, I'm just one man but if 2-3 others(there were 4 military personnel present) had taken cover and returned fire I assure you the body count would have been lower and mostly likely the attacker among them. His body armor was junk, my handgun would go straight through, it will penetrate up to Class 3a body armor. A heavy kevlar vest with ceramic/steel plates inside. It's better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have one.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, how come the topic never turns to the control of violent computer games, movies, and comics? Those raised in that environment seem to have no appreciation of the value of life. The shooter in Aurora fancied himself to be the Joker. Not exactly one of the Brady Bunch. Those who respect the inhabitants of this world cause no harm intentionally. Those who are not taught this generally are Jokers to some degree or another.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHi Smiler03. I have to agree with you. As an Aussie we also have tighter gun restrictions than the US and also seem to have a much less violent society than the US. However because our laws are way less restrictive than Britan we have had a couple of nasty incidents. Sadly in Aust we have vested interests trying to push for relaxation of the current laws. Guess we are becoming the 52nd (whatever) state....sigh.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe perpetrator of this crime was not a criminal until he started pulling the trigger. By your definition, he would have been one of the "sane and normal people" you would like to have been carrying a weapon into this theatre, right up to the point that he turned that weapon on innocent people. It sickens me that the NRA and those that support it are so blinded by the 2nd amendment that they gladly sacrifice their fellow americans on its alter. The US need not fear foreign terrorists because it gladly creates and arms its own terrorists. God bless america.
A recent study found that the city of Chicago had the nations most stringent gun laws and guns were banned for it's citizens. The study found the murder rate was double that of cities with concealed weapon licenses available to the public. The study went on to say that compared to the city of Phoenix Arizona where every person is allowed to legally carry a concealed weapon Chicago murder rate was 300% higher.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't think outlawing guns in the USA would do any good (there are easy-to-make home-made hand held mass murder weapon alternatives- which have already been used). I personally think its our society.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDeranged people can easily (and already have) used other things to accomplish mass killings in the USA (like the Colorado movie theater suspect actually used in his apartment) and the unibomber used with his homemade nail-filled hand grenades.
Even in a matter of minutes, any deranged individual can make mass-killing napalm "M" "tails" out of items we need to use every day...(I won't go further).
There's nothing to stop the next mass murderer from making his own hand grenades and napalm grenades and hitting the next theater- guns or not. Outlawing guns is not the answer.
The presence and acceptance of weapons is what has happened
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisto the mindset of the public. Even if you don't care for weapons, it's so prevalent you wind up giving it little
concern.
It is and shall remain that the will of the people that determines whether we remain saturated with weapons or
at least start to reconcile. Come to terms with the
reasons behind this fear that drives the desire to be
armed.
Please, FEAR is the driving force. If you comfortable and
secure, owning an assault weapon would, in most circumstances, be the last thing on your mind.
If your main passion is assault weapons and your not designing, building or selling them, you have a problem.
I think so. The ease in purchasing assault weapons that use magazines containing 100 or more rounds is very appalling. It is rather chilling that anyone can possibly go into a theater at will with two assault weapons loaded with magazines of 100 or more rounds and shoot so many people in one second. Even if someone has a handgun in the audience, I doubt if he has time to react because of the rapidity that such assault weapons fire. I'm not sure what good it will do if all members in the audience carry an assault rifle/weapon with them as what some people are advocating. In that scenario, a bloodbath would definitely ensue.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisflea, I happen to be an excellent shot and usually only put a single round in each of the hogs in the herd bolting across the pasture or through the woods. Your situation is obviously different from mine, because a 22 does not have any killing power on a large hog out past about 75 yards. (A 22 to does not have the power to make clean kill shot unless the hog is hit in the brain, but I guess the animal suffering is OK.) I often make 200+ yard shots. As far as trapping goes, we catch numerous feral hogs with traps, but then they wise up to the traps and will not go near them for some time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis has nothing to do with "hunting". Like I said, it's pest control. Just curious if, you kill a rat that's in your garden, do eat it? They are edible after all.
As I mentioned before, the AR15 is the gun of choice for pest control, at least in my situation.
Anyway, thanks flea for letting me know I can't shoot well and I'm not a self-respecting hunter, on top of being "nuts".
"A complex issue but when people want to kill people, well guns are the best way to do it."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo, a large home made explosive loaded with shrapnel detonated near or just outside would be best. Of course, a large airplane flown into buildings seems to work pretty good too. It is silly to argue which is deadlier, when it is the nutcases that must be identified and controlled.
Inanimate objects are not responsible. If they were our prisons would be full of knives, guns, bombs, baseball bats, tire irons, curling irons, ice picks, poison, chlorine gas, plastic bags, rope, cars, rocks, hammers and on and on. All of these, have been used by nutcases, to kill and maim the innocent. GK
Hardly a convenient methods GK. None of your examples are as quick and easy as a firearm which seem to work well both deliberately and accidentally. None give you the respect that you deserve either. The idea that firearms make for a better society is difficult to entertain. The belief that they are a solution to problems even less so. At best one can hope to try to reduce the damage that guns do. That needs one to assume that they are a problem.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The idea that firearms make for a better society is difficult to entertain. The belief that they are a solution to problems even less so."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI, of course, did not suggest any of the sort. Look, we have had at least 6000 yrs of history, WITHOUT firearms. Knives and axes were the weapons of mass killings. The weak were ruled by the physically strong. Did the advent of the great equalizer (firearms) improve society? I can't answer that, but I do Know that modern tyranny, has never been stopped by knives.
This genie, can never be put back into the bottle. Better to screen for nutcases, who tend to misuse their purchases (to everyone's chagrin). It is a conundrum... blaming inanimate objects will not stop nutcases. GK
One issue I have not seen addressed, but perhaps someone here has, is the actual timeline of the police response. It appears that they responded to the "scene" very quickly but I have heard reported by CNN that the police refused to enter the theater due to concerns over tear gas (and not having issued respirators on hand) and chose instead to "isolate the area" aka, stand outside while people inside were being shot. IF this is true, then it is a black day for those who vow to serve and protect. Anyone have real data on this aspect that has NOT been covered by the media?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMost ccw's that I know train and shoot regularly. They are prepared to react as they are trained. They take their responsiblities very seriously.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs stated in the second paragraph, fewer people carry guns today, but those who do, have more guns. The problem is the person killing, irrespective of the number of guns they have. Also, if a person intends to kill, do you really think he or she is checking over the gun laws in advance, or ensuring they have a valid concealed weapons permit prior to performing murder or genocide? Where then, is the logic of relating gun regulations (or the lack of them) to gun massacres?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShould we then be trying to maximize the number of guns in society or minimize? I can't even see how one can even hope to eliminate the nutcases [however that is to be defined]. Seems most firearm related deaths are not from your really serious nutcases anyway. Accidents or errors in judgement involving firearms are mostly worse. Heck numbers are killed each year with "unloaded" guns. People are sadly pretty much using guns for the purpose for which they are designed, at a minimum threatening at best killing. We seem to mainly disagree on where to draw the line on nutcases. Needing a firearm a crutch and to get respect fits in where here? Where to draw the line with nutcases is a problem.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI shoot several times per week at a range in a local gun shop. People who buy handguns there can take them to the range for 1/2 hr practice included in the price. I have a pretty good idea of how well Joe Gunowner can shoot, and it is not good. For the most part, they can't consistently hit a dinner plate at 7 yards and this is while holding a gun with both hands in a controlled environment where the target is clear and stationary. The likelihood that a typical gun owner could reliably hit a moving target in the dark at an unknown distance in a situation like the Denver shootings would be laughable if it were not so dangerous. If, as an earlier commenter has suggested, there were as many as six armed citizens in the theater at the same time there is no telling what the outcome would have been. The room was dark and it is entirely possible they might even have taken shots at one another. In the meantime, the other theatergoers would have been caught in a crossfire having no way to know if they are being attacked by a group of terrorists.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs terrible as the situation was, there may have been no way to make it better once the shooting started, but increasing the number of shooters in the room might well have made it much worse.
"Needing a firearm a crutch and to get respect fits in where here? Where to draw the line with nutcases is a problem."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCONGRATULATIONS:
You have just identified one subgroup of nutcases. See how easy it is! If you were behind the counter - would you sell such a person, an assault rifle?! GK
and perhaps the number of dead would be higher
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt would have been appropriate for the authors to answer their headlined question, especially in a respected scientific publication. Any editors around, today?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile the issue of causality cannot be known directly, an inference might be drawn by comparing the number of unlawful gun assaults to the number of carry permits issued. Aren't these numbers knowable?
Of course, this would result in a strange result in Illinois, where the number of gun assaults in Chicago continues to astound in the face of the absolute inability of a citizen to obtain a carry permit. In this instance, the authors might have decided that zero carry permits must result in increased gun violence, given the absence of any facts presented otherwise!
GK. If a gun dealer, yes it seems the second amendment says it is good and why pass up a sale. Probably end up getting sued for not selling. I like your idea of looking closely at why they are buying and what they are buying. Seems most of the gun damage is done by normal people anyway so the nutcase argument is not going to make much difference. Just a half dozen wouldn't make it nationally anyway. This is a complex problem and an the veiw that a firearm is a solution to a problem is going to make it worse. As for the carry laws, why carry a weapon if you are never going to use it or wave it about.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf the purpose is to defend one gun is enough, if the purpose is to resist nothing is enough.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo after 66 comments it looks like people are divided into 2 camps:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1) People who have seen the statistics and understand that the introduction of more armed people to a situation involving an armed aggressor results in more deaths, especially for those being attacked. There isn't a question about this; The numbers speak for themselves.
2) People who egotistically fantasize that the bulk of gun owners' range training will somehow prepare them for an armed combat situation (in which their first action would most likely be to crap their pants, and the second would be to drop or unintentionally discharge their firearm during their attempt to get it out from its concealed location).
Why is it that we universally see comments from combat veterans (here and elsewhere) who state their surety that armed citizens in the theater would have resulted in more deaths. Might they know something more about armed combat than the local range shooter squeezing off a couple of boxes once a month?
Believe it or not ,over the past 33 years and more most of what was witnessed at colorado ,waco,montana,etc.,etc. are all conspired per-se' by "Aniti-Gun or just Anti Bill of Rights" folks{Rogue Local,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisState and Fed Employ}. They just seemingly allways "Know" some idiot or...?
Basically anyone caught by an group of say "Decent Law Abiding" Citizens{Not USA Ignorant State Laws and means Abolished back on 1976 July 4 USA Pres. Gerald Rudolph Ford ,Carter was actually Executed}
can lawfully apply the Second Amendment{Guaranteed Right}against one or ones involved ,basically by say ,"Freedom of Speech" to say ,write,Pray ,etc.or not!
Yes ,even an USA Police Officer can be lawfully Killed by an Law Abing Citizen!
Maybe you know of......."Let me tell you an story of an Good Guy ,King ,Lord of Lords",etc....all those impossible to prove [per-se'}jail,etc. implications ,queries[no pun intended,lol].etc..
Indeed. All these tragedies occur in unarmed crowds-- Columbine, Tuscon, and now Aurora. Although there is no assurance that there might have been armed people with CCW permits in the crowd, nor that they would be bold enough to effectively use their guns if so, but allowing CCW permitted guns in a venue decreases the likelihood of massacres, both from the deterrence that someone might be able to defend themselves, as well as them actually doing so.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA "nice" world would be a great thing, but criminals are not affected by weapon bans-- only law-abiding citizens are, and they are NOT the problem. It's misguided to disarm law-abiding citizens because of this. Criminals will always get guns and commit crimes with them, legal or not. Remember-- when seconds count, police are only minutes away.
"But there is no legitimate reason for assault weapons to be legal", is another sore point. There ARE no assault weapons available-- only civilian look-alikes, or evil-looking, flat black guns that look like they're out of a scifi movie. Assault weapons are, simply put, machine guns. There are about 150,000 of these owned by collectors, strictly regulated since 1934, and in the past 78 years, only ONE crime has ever been committed with one. As for large magazines, the larger the magazine, the greater the likelihood of it jamming. Smaller magazines can be swapped out in less than a second, so these again are misguided regulatory attempts.
Tragedies with guns, cars, gasoline, and other powerful devices/chemicals will always occur, given human nature, but it is important to realize that criminals do not obey legislation, which only disarms or hampers law-abiding people-- the very ones that might be armed and ready to protect you when a lawless lunatic decides to hurt people.
So, anyone who wants to impose gun restrictions, I ask you, "why not ban drugs to eliminate the drug problem"? Oh, they're already banned, yet ubiquitous. So how is gun ownership any different? Those that are intent on getting guns will do so, and an unarmed populace will be sitting ducks for them.
Again, when seconds count, police are only minutes away.
You fail to realize that most people with CCW permits have more training than shooting at a few paper targets at a gun range, else forget police training. Further, no one rationally sprays bullets without clearly seeing their targets. While it is quite possible that a legally armed person might not have had a clear shot, just *knowing* that there may be armed citizens in a venue can be a deterrent to these criminal shooters.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour wrong Lamorpa, as a former SpecOps soldier I can guarantee had I been in that theater it wouldn't have gone down the way it did. I carry concealed everyday and my handgun would have easily defeated the CO idiot's body armor. Most people have no understanding of what a bullet can do. Mainly, because of the media, a recent film showed men taking cover behind a vehicle while being fired at by a M2 .50 caliber machine gun. A car is not cover from a Ma Duece machine gun. In all the years I've carried I have never drawn my weapon, even once when a fool stuck a pistol in my face. The problem is most people have no training or experience with bullets. I take responsibility for every bullet that leaves my weapon and have never missed a target I wanted a bullet in.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have had my CCW for over 20 years and have shot thousands of rounds at targets and the range. It absolutely amazes me the number of people that feel that they are safer in a theater with one shooter intent on targeting and shooting every person in the theater. As for me, I know if I was there and armed, I would not be acting like a sheep on my way to the slaughterhouse. Even having several good guys that are untrained but shooting at the bad guy is a better situation in my mind that the bad guy not having any distraction and systematically acquiring and shooting individuals.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is also easy to disregard the benefit of a armed citizen. Had the story in Colorado been 'Armed man enters a movie theater and was shot by patroon with CCW", we would not even know about the story if we did not live in the local community. It is impossible to prove what would have happened, or what other tragedies have been avoided by someone with a gun. For instance, two weeks ago at an Internet cafe in Florida, two armed men entered in an attempt to rob, and do what additional harm to the patrons in the cafe. Fortunately there was a 71 year old untrained man that rather than randomly spraying bullets at other innocent patrons, he calmly aimed and shoot each of the bad guys. This very well may tragedies if Internet Cafes were gun free zones, after all, do you really need a gun in an internet cafe or movie theater?
http://abcnews.go.com/US/florida-man-71-shoots-alleged-robbers-internet-cafe/comments?type=story&id=16800859#.UBnq4xzTN5s
Had the 71 year old been unarmed, the two bad guys may have decided to kill all the patrons in the cafe to eliminate witnesses and then we would be using this incident as a case study on eliminating guns from society.
If each of us are honest, we know that a tragedy requires that the gun is fired, but the successful use of a gun in stopping a tragedy does not even require the gun being fired. Many robberies and potential additional violent actions have been prevented just by the fact the potential victim had a gun available. Do an internet search, you will find multiple incidents of this occurring, for example an elderly women at home alone while someone tries to break in her house, she yells "I have a gun" and the perp leaves. Is this successful use of a gun in self defense?
This is what I observe, In this article on the Colorado shooting, the anti-gun crowd is full of comments and pseudo or completely fabricated "facts", while conveniently ignoring the facts in the Internet Cafe and all other successful shooting.
Dear Smiler03,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnfortunately, I am an American, who must live in the greatest county in the world in fear and paranoia. Things like this could never occur in the UK due to the fact that private ownership of guns is practically outlawed. You would be 100% safe living there, unless of course you happened to be in Hungerford in August 1987 when 16 people were killed with a gun and 15 additionally seriously wounded. Fortunately after that incident, you strengthened your gun control and began to confiscate privately owned guns and that prevented further incidents. Plus with the strict gun control in the rest of Europe, you were now 100% safe from these crazy American style mass shootings. That is unless you happened to be a child in school in Dunblane in March of 1996, and while again 16 children were killed plus the teacher, only 13 other children were injured plus three additional teachers so the gun control is working well. More gun control and confiscations and now you are 100% safe.
Just don't ride on the Underground, especially on 7/7, or the train in Spain, or go to Frankfurt airport, especially if you are US serviceman.
Well maybe the UK is the place to 100% safe and Paranoia Free. As for me, I thinking of moving to Norway because they have a lot of gun control laws so it should be safe there. Most likely if someone was going to shoot and kill 77 people, it would not happen there. On second thought, I will accept my fate and live with the paranoia in the USA and you can continue to bask in the security and paranoia free UK.
In the 1960s, Scientific America was science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is politics.
Has science been politicized.
Does your liberal faith require you to believe in global warming? Gun control? gay marriage? the welfare state?
How would this have led to more people being injured or killed? Your statement is based on pure bias and not on FACTS. So how do we fix the problem, smart guy?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYep, not a lot of gun crime in the UK, however, knives are a different story!!! People will always find a way to kill. Seriously though, these articles always fail to mention that the VAST majority of homicides (especially in the US) take place in a very small area of highly populated cities. Places where the majority of law abiding, hard working citizens rarely venture. Not to mention they are usually criminal on criminal homicides in the middle of the night when most of the population is fast asleep.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEven the National Weather Service, feels the need for powerful hollow point pistol bullets!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA solicitation which appears on the FedBizOpps website asks for 16,000 rounds of .40 S&W jacketed hollow point (JHP) bullets, noted for their strength, to be delivered to locations in Ellsworth, Maine, and New Bedford, Mass.
A further 6,000 rounds of S&W JHP will be sent to Wall, New Jersey, with another 24,000 rounds of the same bullets heading to the weather station in St. Petersburg, Florida.
The solicitation also asks for 500 paper targets to be delivered to the same locations in Maine, Massachusetts and New Jersey. I wonder what is really going on?? GK
Yeah, the Empire State Building shootings show how well that works, even with highly trained shooters. Move that to a dark theater full of pepper gas and scrambling people, toss in several amateur gunslingers, and what could possibly go wrong? Sheesh.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wouldn't call concealed carry laws lax in all states. But even in Illinois, where concealed carry wasn't permitted, times have changed. A judge there has recently decided not to prosecute concealed carry cases, except when their gun ownership card has expired. People are interested in protecting themselves and their families. If they're responsible citizens, who are trained to use firearms in violent situations, they have that right.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVermont, like a boss since 1775!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust a few months ago, a gunman opened fire in NYC and shot two people. The NYPD, ostensibly trained, shot an additional 5 bystanders before they got the culprit.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour assertion is pure fallacy. I spend more time behind my Glock than any doughnut chaser that does the bare minimum to qualify to continue employment. Most shooters I know live and breathe tactics for situations and take their responsibility to carry very seriously.
You're right about one thing, had I or another one of my trained associates been there, there would be at least one more dead person: The perpetrator.
Would you prefer to hide under a seat as a lemming until the bad guy got to you, or have someone like me with the capability of stopping him?
When seconds count, the cops are only minutes away. Feel free to cower in terror, if you're lucky, men of action and will may save your life.
Your claims are without support, and untrue.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe presence of a gun in the hands of the intended victim stops more crime against them than providing a means of furthering their victimhood. Where do you get these strange ideas...?
Even the conservative figures from the DOJ are many multiples of defensive use of the gun over criminal use of the gun, even if one includes accidents and suicides.
I suggest you look up the data. Prepare for a disappointment. You are wrong sir.
Tell me, given the heat around the gun issue and self defense, if you drew your legally carried gun and stopped someone from attacking without you firing a shot, would you report it to the police? Sans a witness or the perp him or herself?
The real number will never be known, but it's going to be extraordinarily high if one is logical and reasonable, and has ever faced down a mugger.
Are you by chance ex infantry? Consider the very real chance that a number of the audience at the theater were. They would know exactly how to react, were they armed, to take out the gunman with minimum risk to others and themselves. They know how to find and use cover, how to position for the best chance at a hit ... if you qualified with any guns in the military you would know that prone is the most stable shooting platform, pistol or rifle.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI won't give away further tactical information as who knows who is reading this. But trust me, a military man with infantry training and experience would have made a great difference, even if he missed he would have likely driven the killer off. There something about being downrange and a target yourself that just really unsettles the mind of a shooter.
LOL
Statistics from the FBI’s Uniformed Crime Report of 2007 show that states with right-to-carry laws have a 30% lower homicide rate, 46% lower robbery, and 12% lower aggravated assault rate and a 22% lower overall violent crime rate than do states without such laws. That is why more and more states have passed right-to-carry laws over the past decade.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn 1987, my home state of Florida enacted a “shall issue” law that has become the model for other states. Anti-gun groups, politicians and the news media predicted the new law would lead to vigilante justice and “Wild West” shootouts on every corner.
But since adopting a concealed carry law Florida’s total violent crime rate has dropped 32% and its homicide rate has dropped 58%. Floridians, except for criminals, are safer due to this law. And Florida is not alone. Texas’ violent crime rate has dropped 20% and homicide rate has dropped 31%, since enactment of its 1996 carry law.
http://www.humanevents.com/2009/01/26/concealed-carry-permits-are-life-savers/
Just going to say: It's a shame a periodical devoted to science could publish an article with such biased writing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy isn't anyone discussing the psychopathy of youth? The Portland Mall Shooter. Jared Loughner. James Holmes. Adam Lonza. All in their early 20s. All educated and part of hip, cool society.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe homicide rate for 18 to 24 year olds is twice that of the next highest group, 25-34. And 4 times that of all the age groups!
The language of what you have written here suggest you lack respect for law enforcement in general. This also suggests to me that you are exactly who I don't want to be wielding a gun in public. That fact that you are over confident about how you would react under pressure also suggest to me that you lack the ability to judge a situation clearly. Hours behind a gun does not correlate with the ability to perform under pressure or in a crowd of unpredictable individuals.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAt least a police officer has to prove that he can perform under these kinds of pressures. Suggesting that having an armed citizen in the crowd would lower the number of people who were hurt suggests that you expect panicked people to act logically. No one has looked at the crowds response to flying bullets. I am suggesting that the police were shooting at the perpetrator and maybe a panicked public acted as I would suspect and that is not rational.
The GUN: A device that can send a sharp projectile with incredible velocity from one caveman to another, as far away as two-thousand meters, in order to destroy the blood flow of vital organs, with the soul purpose of causing severe injury or death to the receiver.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI read this as you saying you spend much of your time running these sorts of scenarios in your head so that should someone get out of line then you are ready and will take them down? Why do i find this worrying? I have difficulty is seeing how increasing the number of guns in the street makes for a better world. Having folks ready to use them doesn't help either.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis information is not even accurate- I see states that have concealed/carry permit laws on the books as of the dates this article cites, listed as not allowing CCW licenses. At least try to be "scientific" and do some research. I am not impressed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishandguns exist for 1 reason, to kill people. there is no reason for anyone other than police and armed forces to have them. it is their duty to protect the general public. the passion belief most americans have that private handgun ownership is essential is a mindset that is inaccessible to me. sadly attempting to argue with facts against this position is not productive. passionate beliefs are not swayed by factual arguments.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisi'm sorry, is this supposed to be funny? i don't get the joke.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHandguns do not exist for a single reason, we use ours frequently and my kids also enjoy shooting at the range.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe only reason to take firearms away from the public-at-large is to empower government, law-enforcement, and the criminals. As for law-enforcement, their job is not to protect the general public, it is to enforce law, even if those laws contradict public safety.
For now, laws do, typically, protect us, but that may not always be the case.
Secondly, I would rather have legal, private, armed citizens more present to minimize what those with ill-intent could do. It took the police, in Newtown, NEARLY 10 MINUTES to arrive. Not effective at protecting those kids when it takes that long to show up.
"When seconds count, the police are only minutes away"
What correlation is that? More guns more gun crime? Well hoop dee doo. That's not news. What IS news is that the FBI reports LESS violent crime every year for decades.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe peak in the mid 1990's came right after the ban on faux "assault rifles," which are no such thing. Just tricked up sporters to LOOK like but NOT operate the same as battlefield guns.
You, along with millions of others have been the target of dupes for about forty years now. Lies, upon lies upon lies.
The crime data on gun use for violent crimes comes out small select areas that already have high crime rates, and is carefully buried in "homicide," numbers.
Bet YOU think homicide is murder, don't you? Would you be surprised to know that it includes deaths by gun fire that were NOT intentional shootings, as well as intentional shoots BY POLICE AND CIVILIANS IN JUSTIFIABLE DEFENSE OF THEIR LIVES.
I know you don't want to hear this, and your thinking just when to default null, but it's true. We rank about 5th for gun crime and way way down for overall violent crime.
And that's the FBI talkin' and they are NOT pro gun.
Do some research. I did and it turned me around, why not you ... aren't you at least as smart as I am?
The data does NOT support your claim that CCW permit holders draw and start firing wildly and killing bystanders. That honor goes to the police.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe fact is the intended victim is usually very close to the mugger or other attacker when they draw and fire. They rarely miss in fact.
Yesterday I watched a vid of a customer in a convenience store that during a hold up drew and fired. Completely took the gunman by surprise, as it often does when a CCW holder does deploy his or her weapon. One shot and the holdup was over. One.
There are many more such instances where no one but the perp is hit. Often he's not killed. Sometimes NO shot is fired (rather often in fact) and the perp has a change of mind, a "Found Jesus," moment when HE is the one staring down a gun barrel.
You need more education in these matters. I hope for your own sake, should you ever have to face a violent attack (about a one in five chance I'm told) you will be far better informed.
If you choose not to arm, that's your business. I'd pay up my life and health insurance, and polish up your prayers and your skill at begging for your life. That'll do yah. Peace brother.
Your belief that a CCW holder would normally not be trained is BS, sir or madam. Many ARE ex military as more and more will be. Many DO in fact practice and study tactical behavior in a firefight. Some belong to clubs that indeed do such practice and competition.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou know not of which you speak. Or write. I am sad that, if you are an American, you have become so out of touch with our traditions as to believe such things.
We still have shooting clubs that train youth. My own community has a "Hunter Safety," course regularly that indeed teaches above all else, safe gun handling. Our youth are very safe with the use of guns. You are targeting the wrong population with your claims.
But you are forgiven. By me, at any rate. Others may not be so generous and kind as I with the ignorant and stupid, sir.