D.C. gun ban

[homewrecker]

I disagree with any ban on guns because it only promotes violent crimes. When people can't defend themselves they become bigger targets.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=57641

[playerpro153]

That an unreasonable dispute.

1. Violation of 2nd ammendment.

2. Anybody who really wants to carry a firearm can still purchase them out of state or through a private sale. Banning them will not eliminate them.

3. I do believe if a person plans to carry a firearm, they should pass a throrough background check and a safety course in order to abide by safety and zoning restrictions.

[Moto-Brian]

I disagree with any ban on guns because it only promotes violent crimes. When people can't defend themselves they become bigger targets.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=57641

HUH?? Violent crimes will occur if guns are banned or not. Do you know how many criminals have "registered" guns? If a criminal wants to use a gun for a crime, they typically use guns they buy on the street.

As far as people not defending themselves, how do they become a bigger target? So, if that is the case and the fact that few Americans carry a concealed weapon, everyone else is a target? How so?

People make themselves a target, people create targets for themselves and some just are in the wrong place at the wrong time. Drive by shootings amongst gang members... Guys shot were carrying guns and yet, they were targets... Point is that violent crimes happen all the time whether guns are legal or not...

[kawi kid]

im all for carrying guns ill explain later

[Angrish]

bang,bang,

This thread is going to go to hell .......:postcop:stop the madness!!

[owndjoo]

gotta say after some recent incidents, i'm all for having them. BUT, it should be a lil harder to get. some people just aren't mentally stable enough to have that kinda power in their hands.

[homewrecker]

HUH?? Violent crimes will occur if guns are banned or not. Do you know how many criminals have "registered" guns? If a criminal wants to use a gun for a crime, they typically use guns they buy on the street.

As far as people not defending themselves, how do they become a bigger target? So, if that is the case and the fact that few Americans carry a concealed weapon, everyone else is a target? How so?

People make themselves a target, people create targets for themselves and some just are in the wrong place at the wrong time. Drive by shootings amongst gang members... Guys shot were carrying guns and yet, they were targets... Point is that violent crimes happen all the time whether guns are legal or not...

Lets say hypatheticaly (sp.) you are a criminal about to rob someone or rape a man or woman whichever you prefer. Would you be more likely to attack someone that could kill you or someone that can't defend themself. There have been several studies on the subject. There was even a city in Georgia that passed a law saying that everyy homeowner in that city had to own a gun. They passed that law immediately after chicago passed there ban on guns. Since the passing of the two laws there have been more crimes in chicago. However there has not been one single violent crime in the city in Georgia. It has been proven time and time again that when people can properly defend themselves against criminals that are always going to have guns no matter what ban you pass crime levels go down. Every single man should own a gun to protect his family. He should be properly trained how to use it and keep it in a safe place where children can't get at it but have it close at all times. You can disagree if you want but these are my opinions and the facts.

[Moto-Brian]

Lets say hypatheticaly (sp.) you are a criminal about to rob someone or rape a man or woman whichever you prefer. Would you be more likely to attack someone that could kill you or someone that can't defend themself. There have been several studies on the subject. There was even a city in Georgia that passed a law saying that everyy homeowner in that city had to own a gun. They passed that law immediately after chicago passed there ban on guns. Since the passing of the two laws there have been more crimes in chicago. However there has not been one single violent crime in the city in Georgia. It has been proven time and time again that when people can properly defend themselves against criminals that are always going to have guns no matter what ban you pass crime levels go down. Every single man should own a gun to protect his family. He should be properly trained how to use it and keep it in a safe place where children can't get at it but have it close at all times. You can disagree if you want but these are my opinions and the facts.

I understand it is your opinion, but what exactly are the facts? Crime STILL happens. STILL... Just because a state allows CC, doesn't make it a deal where crime doesn't exist. Look at Texas - they've been one of the first to allow people to carry weapons. Crime still happens...

You're right to a degree, but look at it this way - Take Flounder and I. Flounder has his CC and I do not. If we were both SEPERATELY walking down the same street and a criminal decided he was going to jump each of us for money and had a gun, how does a criminal decide as to which to hold up? I look similar to Flounder, I dress similar and appear to be much the same yet, I am the one w/o a gun. Crime is a lot of times a matter of impulse. Street based crimes like muggings, etc are quickly decided - not all planned out and the victim plotted and watched for an amount of time before they are held up...

Rape, in most studies (Since you want facts) typically is from somone who knows the victim. Again, guns are not really going to help...

But, in any case, since we are talking about it, sure... If the state allows CC, it is a gamble for a criminal to hold up people with the premise that they could easily be walking into a situation where that so called victim could be carrying a gun.

My point overall is that if you ban guns, crime will certainly still happen. Even if banning is not going on, those criminals will still be getting guns the same way - they don't go down to Vance's and pick one up to use on a killing spree... Even if they did due to a state not having a waiting period or background check (GA doesn't require back ground checks...!), they'd have done it anyways.

It's the criminals that buy guns that have clean backgrounds yet they are disgrunteled and go into their work or school and shoot everyone in a fit of rage or vengence...

Look, banning guns is stupid and isn't going to reduce crime. Allowing guns isn't going to reduce violent crimes a whole lot, either...

Now, as far as stats, I suggest that burgleries are probably less in a state with people being allowed to own and carry guns. I mean, chances are, there's going to be a gun in a house if it is allowed freely and easily... Come into my house and even though I don't have a CC, I'll show you my .45 anytime... I prefer the Remington shot gun, though...

By teh way, not sure where you pulled your info on guns and crime in GA, but look at this link to see what really is an issue. Some scary issues going on in GA... http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/state/viewstate.php?st=ga

Here's the common example people use when they refer to GA when it comes to using stats to validate the gun laws. In Kennesaw, they require a gun to be in the house and they claim that crimes have greatly been reduced since. That was back in the 80's when the stats were taken, but here's a clip from the following site:

"

MYTH: A decrease in crime in Kennesaw, Georgia after it passed a law which required people to keep a firearm in their homes shows that guns reduce crime.

TRUTH: Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig explain, "The case of Kennesaw, Georgia, which adopted an ordinance in 1982 requiring every household to keep a gun, has been prominent. There have been several published analyses of the burglary trends in Kennesaw around the time of the ordinance, with contradictory results. In any event, this is not a good test of the deterrence hypothesis, since the ordinance was purely symbolic. Most homes in Kennesaw already had a gun before the ordinance, and it seems unlikely the ordinance had any effect on prevalence since there was no penalty specified in the law for refusal to comply." ("Guns and Burglary", Evaluating Gun Policy, pages 81-82)

The gun ownership rate of Kennesaw could have actually decreased because there has been a big increase in the population of Kennesaw since 1982, and it's not certain how many of the new residents abide by the ordinance. Nationwide the gun ownership rate has decreased according to the General Social Survey. So if Kennesaw has followed nationwide trends the gun ownership rate in Kennesaw would have also declined." Taken from http://www.guninformation.org/

Finally, Right to Carry has been adopted by a majority of the US now. Here's a great map to show who is and who isn't. Violent crimes in the US have increased so, not sure how you can say they decline...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Rtc.gif

Also something to consider is that many people use years ago to validate that crimes have decreased. They have since somewhere around 1985. However, as they decreased, states have come along (refer to map) and allowed the rights to carry. So, one would easily be able to think as states allowed it, that violent crimes decreased. Well, in 2005 and since, those crimes have increased... So, if more states in 2005 allowed rights to carry than in 1985, shouldn't the treand continue? It's going up. A lot more murders and such have resulted. I'm not saying it is due to CCW, I am saying it is because society has more crime when things promote it.

Here's a link to good info on crime rates and increases:

http://www.voanews.com/specialenglish/archive/2006-12/2006-12-22-voa2.cfm

So, I believe that crime occurs all the time. Violent or not. In states that have CCW or not. I believe the crime rates are going up due to the economy and the amount of expenses people incurr. Stress and angrish can lead to shooting sprees and massive assaults from people that had they not been in those situations, would have probably never done what they did. Look at the number of mass shootings we have now than before. What, because the people who were killing were allowed to have guns, right? The guy in Southern Ohio that killed his wife and opened up on students and such - he was an average Joe. No issues, but he got a gun and one day just snapped...

Guns should be allowed. I think background checks are needed and should be the norm. I believe we should have the right to CCW. I also think that criminals will get guns no matter what and will target those with and without guns or CCW. Criminals are not researching their prey usually. Stalkers? Maybe...

[fusion]

^^^Yeah what he said.

[walther_gsp]

I understand it is your opinion, but what exactly are the facts? Crime STILL happens. STILL... Just because a state allows CC, doesn't make it a deal where crime doesn't exist. Look at Texas - they've been one of the first to allow people to carry weapons. Crime still happens...

Yes, but the point I think he's trying to make is that banning guns increases the violent crime rate, where allowing CCW decreases it. Crime will happen no matter what, I agree. It's basic human nature. I don't know the figures off the top of my head anymore (not had to do research in 4 years), but the percentage at which the violent crime rate increases when guns are banned is greater than the decrease when CCW is allowed. Mind you, this is looking at trending for 2 different environments, with different SES factors, but its rather interesting.

[bassJAM]

^agreed^ You can't get rid of crime, but a criminal will feel much more comfortable commiting a crime with no CC than where it is allowed. One problem I have with the CC laws is all the buildings that place the "no firearms allowed" signs. It's pretty hard to go anywhere without seeing those signs, so it seems pretty useless for me to get my permit if I can't carry my sidearm anywhere. And it's not like that sign makes the place safer in any way...really if I wanted to rob a place I would look for a store with that sign tp target.

[fusion]

Or maybe more criminals will feel the need to shoot first and steal later instead of your standard hold up or mugging if they think everyone might have a weapon. Desperate people do stupid things.

Gun or not very few people would be able to actually protect themselves in the off chance someone attacked them. One reason is a good number of people don't react quite the same as one would think even when they practice or train. Another is the person attacking already has their weapon handy and will act if they think you are going after yours. This ain't the movies Quick Draw McGraw.

[walther_gsp]

Or maybe more criminals will feel the need to shoot first and steal later instead of your standard hold up or mugging if they think everyone might have a weapon. Desperate people do stupid things.

Gun or not very few people would be able to actually protect themselves in the off chance someone attacked them. One reason is a good number of people don't react quite the same as one would think even when they practice or train. Another is the person attacking already has their weapon handy and will act if they think you are going after yours. This ain't the movies Quick Draw McGraw.

To your first assertion, research has shown that that is not the case. Like I said before, violent crime typically drops 3-5% when states enact CCW. The major case study on this was More Guns, Less Crime by John Lott.

To the second assertion, the FBI UCR year after year shows that guns are used defensively ~ 2.5 million times a year. So saying that very few people would be able to protect themselves is incorrect. And that is only accounting for the stuff that actually gets reported to law enforcement.

[fusion]

To your first assertion, research has shown that that is not the case. Like I said before, violent crime typically drops 3-5% when states enact CCW. The major case study on this was More Guns, Less Crime by John Lott.

To the second assertion, the FBI UCR year after year shows that guns are used defensively ~ 2.5 million times a year. So saying that very few people would be able to protect themselves is incorrect. And that is only accounting for the stuff that actually gets reported to law enforcement.

Fantastic. Then you'll have no problem providing us links to support that claim of a direct link between the two where a decrease can't be explained by other things. Correlation doesn't equal causation.

My second assertion isn't incorrect. We're talking personal protection and self defense under conceal carry conditions. I think it's pretty friggin obvious to say you can defend yourself with a gun in general. I could defend myself with a damn spoon under more than a few conditions, but that doesn't mean when should start passing laws that everyone carry and train to defend themselves with spoons.

Of course everyone knows the spork is far superior.

Just so we're clear, I have no problem with conceal carry in general and am getting my CCW this spring once a friend of mine starts his courses.

I have a problem with misrepresented stats.

Oh yeah, Lott.... http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=lott Sure it's from the Brady site but at least I provided a link.

[Angrish]

Columbus started CCW 4years ago ... crime has droped, and this city has not had 1 case involving a CCW person discharging his or her fire arm.There are 6000 CCW holders in franklin county.....last sunday paper.

I have been carrying guns for a long time.......I also lived on the eastside. Since this CCW has been around I notice a lot of normal ppl profiling white males between the ages of 28 and 38 for having this CCW.I like that.And that alone should slow down crime.Crazy white ppl w/ guns.I think guns are great ......My father has shot 18 ppl in 35 years as a police officer.He believes in arming the ppl.Crime was a little less back then maybe population not sure.

All of you like the idea of being allowed to carry guns right? I'm putting a class togeter at my house ...neeed 8....PM if you are down NO FELONS (you no why).pm me and when I get the ppl together I'll set a date ....late march!or sooner

[walther_gsp]

Fantastic. Then you'll have no problem providing us links to support that claim of a direct link between the two where a decrease can't be explained by other things. Correlation doesn't equal causation.

My second assertion isn't incorrect. We're talking personal protection and self defense under conceal carry conditions. I think it's pretty friggin obvious to say you can defend yourself with a gun in general. I could defend myself with a damn spoon under more than a few conditions, but that doesn't mean when should start passing laws that everyone carry and train to defend themselves with spoons.

Of course everyone knows the spork is far superior.

Just so we're clear, I have no problem with conceal carry in general and am getting my CCW this spring once a friend of mine starts his courses.

I have a problem with misrepresented stats.

Oh yeah, Lott.... http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=lott Sure it's from the Brady site but at least I provided a link.

Aside, from anecdotal data, I can't provide stats on uses of CCW because quite honestly, I am not aware of any LE agency that tracks that data. Can you provide any data that says folks CAN'T protect themselves? The problem I have with what you are saying is that people who practice and train can't necessarily protect themselves. The whole point of training is to prepare yourself for those "oh shit" conditions. I would agree if you said people that get their CCW, carry and then never practice or train again are not likely to protect themselves, then yes.

The whole point of CCW is that it makes it legal for the individual to take their personal safety into their own hands instead of having to rely on the gov't (police) to protect them. A gun, in many instances, is the most ideal tool for such. However, a gun, knife, years of martial arts training, etc... are all pretty useless without a little common sense and situational awareness. Those are the most important weapons of all in personal protection.

As far as ccw/drop in crime research goes, Lott wasn't the only researcher out there who came to the same conclusions. Sorry I don't have any of that handy to provide a link, but all my crim related research/references has been boxed up in a basement for 4 years.

[walther_gsp]

Columbus started CCW 4years ago ... crime has droped, and this city has not had 1 case involving a CCW person discharging his or her fire arm.There are 6000 CCW holders in franklin county....

I know for a fact that that is not quite accurate. I spoke with the CCW holder who pulled the trigger. He was an instructor as well.

http://media.putfile.com/How-To-Make-Swiss-Cheese80

There is the video to the event, complete with music courtesy of the guy's roommate. I show this on occasion when teaching CCW classes as "Proper use of a coworker for Cover & Concealment"

Man To Be Charged With Aggravated Robbery

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- Police said a desk clerk shot a man who was

attempting to rob an east side motel on Saturday night.

Officers said that shortly before 9:30 p.m., a man walked into the

Super 8 Motel, located at 2055 Brice Rd., showed a gun and demanded

money.

Police said the desk clerk on duty then shot the alleged robber,

Antoine Stephens.

Stephens, 20, was transported to Grant Medical Center and was in

serious condition on Sunday morning, NBC 4 reported.

Police said he would be charged with aggravated robbery.

The motel clerk's name was not released. It was unclear as to whether

he would be charged.

Anyone with information about the crime is asked to contact the

Columbus police detective bureau at (614) 645-4624. Anonymous calls

can be made to Central Ohio Crime Stoppers at (614) 645-8477.

[Angrish]

I know for a fact that that is not quite accurate. I spoke with the CCW holder who pulled the trigger. He was an instructor as well.

http://media.putfile.com/How-To-Make-Swiss-Cheese80

There is the video to the event, complete with music courtesy of the guy's roommate. I show this on occasion when teaching CCW classes as "Proper use of a coworker for Cover & Concealment"

Man To Be Charged With Aggravated Robbery

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- Police said a desk clerk shot a man who was

attempting to rob an east side motel on Saturday night.

Officers said that shortly before 9:30 p.m., a man walked into the

Super 8 Motel, located at 2055 Brice Rd., showed a gun and demanded

money.

Police said the desk clerk on duty then shot the alleged robber,

Antoine Stephens.

Stephens, 20, was transported to Grant Medical Center and was in

serious condition on Sunday morning, NBC 4 reported.

Police said he would be charged with aggravated robbery.

The motel clerk's name was not released. It was unclear as to whether

he would be charged.

Anyone with information about the crime is asked to contact the

Columbus police detective bureau at (614) 645-4624. Anonymous calls

can be made to Central Ohio Crime Stoppers at (614) 645-8477.

The link doesn't work.

Then he's a cop maybe? or a federal personal.It was in the paper last sunday.If some one was shot by a CCW then the case is pending investagation because there has not been any cases in the franklin county courts...

[Angrish]

Walther did this happen last sat? If so it didn't make the sunday paper.Thats funny the day before they put that story out hahahhahha

[walther_gsp]

It didn't happen last sunday, thats the expert from the Columbus Dispatch that I saved in case the article went offline. That happened at least two years ago. I think it was Jan/Feb 06. The guy in question was not law enforcement, but a part time employee at a hotel. I didn't realize the link wasn't valid anymore. I'll have to see if I saved it or if I can track the guy down and get a copy.

[fusion]

Aside, from anecdotal data, I can't provide stats on uses of CCW because quite honestly, I am not aware of any LE agency that tracks that data. Can you provide any data that says folks CAN'T protect themselves? The problem I have with what you are saying is that people who practice and train can't necessarily protect themselves. The whole point of training is to prepare yourself for those "oh shit" conditions. I would agree if you said people that get their CCW, carry and then never practice or train again are not likely to protect themselves, then yes.

The whole point of CCW is that it makes it legal for the individual to take their personal safety into their own hands instead of having to rely on the gov't (police) to protect them. A gun, in many instances, is the most ideal tool for such. However, a gun, knife, years of martial arts training, etc... are all pretty useless without a little common sense and situational awareness. Those are the most important weapons of all in personal protection.

As far as ccw/drop in crime research goes, Lott wasn't the only researcher out there who came to the same conclusions. Sorry I don't have any of that handy to provide a link, but all my crim related research/references has been boxed up in a basement for 4 years.

Turn on the news and you can see that everyday people can't protect themselves.

Having a gun doesn't make you any more able to defend yourself. It just gives you a tool to do so. If I'm a "bad guy" and I come after you I'm not giving you time to draw your weapon. A police officer can get taken out by the guy standing in front of him with his weapon(s) on his hip and he is trained considerably more than even someone with a 12 hour course and a CCW.

Situational awareness is the key to avoiding those situations or keeping them from getting to an escalated point. It's after that or when it's unavoidable that we're talking about.

You provided the name Lott and I provided a link that provided material discrediting him. Including admission by the co-author of the study Lott used that it was flawed.

"Mustard was deposed under oath in the Ohio concealed handgun case Klein v. Leis. Mustard admitted that: 1) the study "omitted variables" which could explain that changes in the crime rate are due to reasons other than changes in CCW laws, and 2) the study did not account for many of the major factors that Mustard believes affect crime including crack cocaine, wealth, drugs and alcohol use, and police practices such as community policing"

[fusion]

I know for a fact that that is not quite accurate. I spoke with the CCW holder who pulled the trigger. He was an instructor as well.

http://media.putfile.com/How-To-Make-Swiss-Cheese80

There is the video to the event, complete with music courtesy of the guy's roommate. I show this on occasion when teaching CCW classes as "Proper use of a coworker for Cover & Concealment"

Man To Be Charged With Aggravated Robbery

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- Police said a desk clerk shot a man who was

attempting to rob an east side motel on Saturday night.

Officers said that shortly before 9:30 p.m., a man walked into the

Super 8 Motel, located at 2055 Brice Rd., showed a gun and demanded

money.

Police said the desk clerk on duty then shot the alleged robber,

Antoine Stephens.

Stephens, 20, was transported to Grant Medical Center and was in

serious condition on Sunday morning, NBC 4 reported.

Police said he would be charged with aggravated robbery.

The motel clerk's name was not released. It was unclear as to whether

he would be charged.

Anyone with information about the crime is asked to contact the

Columbus police detective bureau at (614) 645-4624. Anonymous calls

can be made to Central Ohio Crime Stoppers at (614) 645-8477.

Clerks have shot would be robbers without CCW and the gun being under the counter as protection for the premises many times in the past. There are areas I've been where it's been common practice for a clerk to have a weapon on them or under the counter because of the amount of crime and it's common for some business to be held up.

How about a link where the person is separated from a normal environment where a weapon might exist to begin with, like grocery shopping, walking to a bus stop, ...