One overlooked position in this argument is who is affected by laws.  In reality only the middle class is really obedient to laws, because they have the most to lose.  The rich can buy their way out and the extreme poor have nothing (or very little) to lose.

The majority of deaths are caused by people who legally aren't supposed to own or possess guns in the first place.  Chicago is an excellent example, rampant gun violence mostly by gangs, and aren't guns illegal in Chicago?  Our issue of gun violence compared to other industrialized nations is not a factor of guns, but rather a factor of our fastest growing sector of society which is low income, uneducated, and fairly barbaric.

I firmly believe the more law abiding citizens who are trained and proficient with fire arms we have the less violence we will have.  We need to enforce the laws we already have and hand out extremely stiff penalties to those who break them.

Quote from: kimdp999 on February 06, 2013, 05:52:33 PM
One overlooked position in this argument is who is affected by laws.  In reality only the middle class is really obedient to laws, because they have the most to lose.  The rich can buy their way out and the extreme poor have nothing (or very little) to lose.

The majority of deaths are caused by people who legally aren't supposed to own or possess guns in the first place.  Chicago is an excellent example, rampant gun violence mostly by gangs, and aren't guns illegal in Chicago?  Our issue of gun violence compared to other industrialized nations is not a factor of guns, but rather a factor of our fastest growing sector of society which is low income, uneducated, and fairly barbaric.

I firmly believe the more law abiding citizens who are trained and proficient with fire arms we have the less violence we will have.  We need to enforce the laws we already have and hand out extremely stiff penalties to those who break them.

Right on, good common sense commentary on the realities, rather than the usual whiny, knee-jerk, delusional drivel.

Kia Ora,

"Why do you need to carry a GUN  ?"

What does this say about the effectiveness of American Law Enforcement-if American citizens feel the 'need' to carry guns !
This is not a slight on US police-they put their life on the line each day, but it does beg the question when it comes to putting ones trust in their ability to "protect and serve"....

Metta Zenda

something I didn't write but it should be taken into consideration:

QuotePolice have no legal duty to respond and prevent crime or protect the victim. There have BEEN OVER 10 various supreme and state court cases the individual has never won. Notably, the Supreme Court STATED about the responsibility of police for the security of your family and loved ones is "You, and only you, are responsible for your security and the security of your family and loved ones. That was the essence of a U.S. Supreme Court decision in the early 1980's when they ruled that the police do not have a duty to protect you as an individual, but to protect society as a whole."

"It is well-settled fact of American law that the police have no legal duty to protect any individual citizen from crime, even if the citizen has received death threats and the police have negligently failed to provide protection."

Sources:

7/15/05 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 04-278 TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK, COLORADO, PETITIONER v. JESSICA GONZALES, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT BEST FRIEND OF HER DECEASED MINOR CHILDREN, REBECCA GONZALES, KATHERYN GONZALES, AND LESLIE GONZALES
On June 27, in the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the Supreme Court found that Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to individual police protection even in the presence of a restraining order. Mrs. Gonzales' husband with a track record of violence, stabbing Mrs. Gonzales to death, Mrs. Gonzales' family could not get the Supreme Court to change their unanimous decision for one's individual protection. YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN FOLKS AND GOVERNMENT BODIES ARE REFUSING TO PASS THE Safety Ordinance.

(1) Richard W. Stevens. 1999. Dial 911 and Die. Hartford, Wisconsin: Mazel Freedom Press.
(2) Barillari v. City of Milwaukee, 533 N.W.2d 759 (Wis. 1995).
(3) Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982).
(4) DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989).
(5) Ford v. Town of Grafton, 693 N.E.2d 1047 (Mass. App. 1998).
(6) Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1981).
"...a government and its agencies are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..." -Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981)

(7) "What makes the City's position particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of NY which now denies all responsibility to her."
Riss v. New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579,293 N.Y.S.2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 806 (1958).

( "Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the general public."
Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989)

New York Times, Washington DC
Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone By LINDA GREENHOUSE Published: June 28, 2005
The ruling applies even for a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

Oh my god Peky you're trying to make everybody on Susan's hate one another, aren't you?

Kia Ora,

That's interesting [#99]...So if the American police are not there to protect the individual, and their job is only to protect society 'as a whole' [and individuals make up a society]then who or what are they meant to be protecting?

In reality 'society' does not exist, it is nothing without the individual...

So the American citizen who understands the role of the police officer has no other option[a part from migration] but to protect themselves.

Which brings it back to my original comment/post about the Hollywood style "The Wild West" mentality...Again this is not a slight on the American people as a whole' ...Just an observation on why guns [so it would seem] are a popular part of American culture/psyche...

However when it comes to the frequent shootings and the ineffectiveness of policy/law makers who seem to end up watering down the laws, and expect them to make a difference, Einstein's  definition of insanity is quite appropriate ie, "Continuing to do 'the same thing' over and over again, each time hoping for a different result/outcome !" 

But in saying all this...I know there is no magic bullet [excuse the pun] when it comes to solving America's gun problem...

Metta Zenda

Guns are illegal in the UK,even if they were legal I don't think I would have one and definitely not without being trained how to use it.

Quote from: Zenda on February 06, 2013, 11:44:32 PM
Kia Ora,

"Why do you need to carry a GUN  ?"

What does this say about the effectiveness of American Law Enforcement-if American citizens feel the 'need' to carry guns !
This is not a slight on US police-they put their life on the line each day, but it does beg the question when it comes to putting ones trust in their ability to "protect and serve"....

Metta Zenda

The idea that police are hired and trained by departments to protect individuals is something of an illusion. There have been attempts at lawsuits in various cities and municipalities by individuals who have been raped, robbed, and experienced home invasions who have called the police and experienced a sluggish response or none at all. Their lawsuit, based on the idea that the police are there to protect them from harm has been thrown out on the premise that they are not there to provide protection for any individual. Their primary mission is to protect the municipal infrastructure and serve as a deterrent against criminal activity, which includes arresting anyone involved in an infraction of the law at their discretion. They are therefore unable to preempt murders, rapes and home invasions but in most cases will take a report after the fact. Normally the head of any household is responsible for the protection and wellbeing of his/her family, this isn't something that can realistically be abrogated in favor of the police who are usually stretched beyond their capacity to respond to every call. It's clearly delusional for anyone to assume otherwise. Ask your local prosecutor, they will tell you that this is indeed true.

Quote from: DianaP on February 07, 2013, 05:39:57 AM
Yes, because any good point that disagrees with your views is just whiny, knee-jerk, delusional drivel. 

Not always, but in this case yes!

I tend to avoid the gun debates. My dad was a big NRA fan, but no longer. For me (and it's just a personal view of no real relevance to the political struggle), I know that I very nearly managed to kill myself in my teens in part thanks to the presence of guns in the house. Fortunately, I didn't really want to do it, or I would have actually followed through. And this was in a household where gun safety was fairly and responsibly enforced... my dad was careful to make sure that we all knew how to use them properly, but also that they remained under lock and key all the time.

To me, it seems clear, and did even from NRA propaganda in the 70s, that there's a far greater risk associated with having guns in a house than the odds of preventing something bad with one or more of them, if only because good people doing stupid things at home is a lot more common than home invasions or other bad things. 

At least part of the "fault" for the Connecticut shooting was the denial in the shooter's mother's mind that allowed her to decide to keep her guns in the house when she knew she had a child there who was a potential threat... but maybe she really didn't see that threat? Or did she rationalize it? I don't know... people have a tendency to not make such terrible connection, don't they?

Quote from: kimdp999 on February 06, 2013, 05:52:33 PM
One overlooked position in this argument is who is affected by laws.  In reality only the middle class is really obedient to laws, because they have the most to lose.  The rich can buy their way out and the extreme poor have nothing (or very little) to lose.

I need to call you on this. It's a gross generalization at best. There are a huge number of poor folks who scrupulously follow laws. The statement that poor people are lawbreakers is prejudicial. And it is not the case that rich folks can buy their way out (ask Plaxico Burress, star NFL receiver who spent years in prison for violating New York City gun laws).

Quote from: cynthialee on February 06, 2013, 11:58:39 PM
It is well-settled fact of American law that the police have no legal duty to protect any individual citizen from crime

Oddly, this is the main reason why I think gun regulation is a must. Given that the police are not going to ride up on their white horses and save me if a gunfight breaks out nearby, I feel much safer in places where guns are rare.

Quote from: agfrommd on February 07, 2013, 08:55:50 AM
Oddly, this is the main reason why I think gun regulation is a must. Given that the police are not going to ride up on their white horses and save me if a gunfight breaks out nearby, I feel much safer in places where guns are rare.

I actually feel the opposite. Because the police are not going to be there to protect me, I feel safer when there are more guns around. To me, the more people that have a gun the less likely one will be used in violence. The criminal is too afraid of getting shot by someone else. My views however, are built from a life where it was mandatory to carry a gun. Therefore, all those I used to be around, to include myself, were professionally trained to properly handle firearms. I'm not talking police type training because let's face it, their training is grossly lacking.

Quote from: agfrommd on February 07, 2013, 08:55:50 AM

Oddly, this is the main reason why I think gun regulation is a must. Given that the police are not going to ride up on their white horses and save me if a gunfight breaks out nearby, I feel much safer in places where guns are rare.

The problem lies in the errant thought with over 3 million + firearms in circulation and many in the hands of those who wouldn't obey any laws, how will you find any place in CONUS where guns are rare? No-one has an answer to that question.

I was out with half a dozen TG girlfriends several years ago following a TG Group session. We were going to have a few drinks and follow up on the evening since everyone was dressed to the nines and had their makeup on. We were approached by three sloppy looking dorks, when one said, "Hey look, lets kick some ->-bleeped-<- asses" and started for us. It was frightening, so out came my heat and they took off running. After my Adrenalin rush had subsided the discussion over drinks later was all about what we should do for protection. It was a given that if a cop had been close by he might have looked the other way as we all got our faces smashed in.

Some of the details of the story below are true but some have been change to protect the innocent



So, a few years ago, in a moonless and clear-sky summer night, my friend Pete and his teen daughters rode to a desolated rural area to do some amateur astronomy.  To make a long story short, four man passing by tried to attack them but fortunately Pete was carrying his gun. All Pete had to do is shot in the air, and like magic the criminals were gone. Pete told me that evening that though he was shock, he would have shot to kill to defend his girls have the criminals come any closer...


The sad part is that it took a few years for the girls to get over the scare...and their budding passion for astronomy vanished with the echo of the shot..Regretfully this type of the stories do not receive "high" exposure in the National media   

It's cause most americans seem to feel he world would be so soooo much safer if everybody had a gun.

Doesn't explain why more weapons are produced by Russia and China.

It seems like I've heard about a time like that, where everyone carried a gun.  The American West.

Everyone had the chance to protect themself, but people still died, criminals still roamed the land.

It had its good points and its bad points.  The thing is, people will be people.
--------------------------

I do own a 38 special, I've never had to use it, but it is there and I think it is our right to own a gun or rifle.  I was trained to shoot by our dear old military, rifle, pistol (45), machine gun and bazooka.

It's kind of like how rat poison in every cupboard would make us all safer.  Not exactly the same logic, but similar.   And yeah the wild wild west was easily the safest place and time ever.

Quote from: peky on February 07, 2013, 10:13:39 AM
The sad part is that it took a few years for the girls to get over the scare...and their budding passion for astronomy vanished with the echo of the shot..Regretfully this type of the stories do not receive "high" exposure in the National media   

And this is the part that sticks with me. We do live in a country (those of us in the US) where guns are commonplace, so I don't judge or want to try to make some case against his doing what seemed necessary. But in the end, we have wound up living in a culture of fear, as a result... something that no particular gun legislation is likely to do much to change or improve. That's also why I try to avoid these discussions, since it winds up reducing to anecdotal cases and I just wind up feeling more depressed in general about the state of the culture.

you can't legislate safety or equality... to think you can just empowers 'professional' politicians that get off on you voting for them.  to me, politics, legislature, gov is disgusting and I will not support ANYTHING they do because I am a non violent person with a non-aggression principle.  gov is a monopoly on the legal use of force, read violence...

just think about what a politician is... a person whose job it is to decide what's best for YOU! what you can eat, drink, say, do, act! a person that decides the best way to spend YOUR fruits of YOUR Labor! and if you don't agree... b you have to give them more money, and even go to jail! because you disagree with them?! wtf! sorry I'm getting off topic but my point being that you cannot legislate safety and all attempts with have negative consequences :-)