Seattle gun ban WTF
-
@DaveyDaveDave said:
Oops - sorry, my bad. Carry on :)
No problem. Just try posting on the more computer related threads as well.
-
@shepd said:
Or people that react badly to being upset. You know, the kind that, eventually, when you piss them off enough, don't just consider using their gun, they actually grab it and point it at you.
I'm unaware of any instance of a person with a concealed weapon permit pulling his (or her) weapon out of anger. This leads me to believe you're just spreading FUD - do you have any examples of (legal) concealed weapon carriers who have pulled their gun out of anger?
-
When Australia tightened its gun laws after the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, there was a small decrease in firearm use in homicides. More significantly there was a far larger decrease in the number of firearm related suicides and accidents.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia#Changes_in_social_problems_related_to_firearms_over_time
-
@Heron said:
I'm unaware of any instance of a person with a concealed weapon permit pulling his (or her) weapon out of anger.
Ahh, well, I can fix that:
http://www.knoxviews.com/node/12248
I'm sure it's not actually that all uncommon considering "Road Rage" is a condition listed in the DSM, and that Road Rage can involve the use of firearms.
Now, think about this for a moment: If the firearm is locked up properly, it will take some time, and often, two hands to get at it. That means the driver whom the road rage is directed at has time to leave the scene. If the firearm, instead, is sitting in the driver's glove compartment, or, worse, lying on the seat, the other driver doesn't have much opportunity to get away.
Of course, that requires that visible firearms be under lock and key except in places they can be used appropriately. Unfortunately, in the US, this is probably not possible to specify due to the constitution. Sounds like this city is doing the best they can with a bad situation (If you have guns, you need to show them at all times so people can avoid you if you are getting angry).
-
@shepd said:
@Heron said:
I'm unaware of any instance of a person with a concealed weapon permit pulling his (or her) weapon out of anger.
Ahh, well, I can fix that:
http://www.knoxviews.com/node/12248
Now wait a minute... I was talking about concealed weapon permits; the site you linked to merely says the guy had a "handgun permit", which is different. (That is, a person may have a handgun permit without having a concealed weapon permit.)
The distinction is important, and in fact my comments were directed specifically at concealed weapon permit-holders, rather than to the more generic handgun permit-holders.
-
@NorseLaQuet said:
Again, gun control or no gun control, this law is stupid. Fortunately, a Seattle lawyer who happens to have a concealed weapons permit walked into a park (after informing officials he would be carrying a gun) so he could be kicked out and have grounds to sue the city.
Now that is a smart lawyer. Way to stick it to the man.
All this talk about guns killing people, and you hardly mentioned why gun ownership is a right guaranteed to American citizens by the Constitution of the United States of America: for citizens to have a last-resort defense against an oppressive government. Whenever a government suppresses the people's right to life, liberty, and property, it is "the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it," as quoted from the United States Declaration of Independence.
When any threat, foreign or domestic, threatens essential rights, and the government will no longer protect the people, then a weapon is the only option left to secure those rights. This is why gun control is such rubbish.
-
Months ago I travelled to the US, and I had to fill a questionnaire, which had a question like "are you planning to terrorize/bomb/etc ? "
I was temped to say "yes" for the fun of it and to see what happens, but then I thought, if someone is as stupid to put such a question there, he could be as stupid and also believe the answer...
-
@Heron said:
The distinction is important, and in fact my comments were directed specifically at concealed weapon permit-holders, rather than to the more generic handgun permit-holders.
As a non-american, I honestly didn't know there was a difference. However, unless a psychology examination is part of getting a concealed carry permit, how does that exclude people with undiagnosed DSM disorders? Or, heck, do they even ask your doctor for a previously done psychological profile to make sure you haven't any issues before they give you one?
I'm willing to bet the only difference between someone with a permit to carry and a permit to carry a concealed weapon is the latter took a longer test. Or any test at all, perhaps!
-
@amischiefr said:
@DaveyDaveDave said:
As per my post above, 20 times as many people get shot in the US, per 100,000 of population, than in England, so your numbers above are something like 100-times bigger for the US.
You completely missed the point of my arguement. I was not trying to compare America to Englend. I was trying to illustrate that even with all of those strict gun laws, you could not prevent people from being murdered with guns. True, you have shifted the burdon of murder to knives, bats etc., but you didn't stop the criminals from getting guns and using them. Sure, they are less accessible, therefore criminals are using alternate means of comiting crimes, but you haven't prevented it.
You may not have stopped [b]all[/b] of them, but 95% is pretty good in my book.
Two more points: Why do people keep equating guns with knives? As I see it, there is a huge difference between a ranged weapon and a knife. With a gun you can kill someone from up to a mile away (with the right gun and conditions), but with a knife you have to be very close to the other guy, subjecting yourself to the fists, elbows, knees and feet of your intended victim.
Also, gun ownership in Finland may be high, but if it's like Sweden, most guns are rifles or shotguns intended for rabbits, deer and moose. You don't walk around with a 4-foot rifle in your pocket. (In Finland it's popular to use them on yourself on a saturday night after a bottle of Vodka, but that's another story).
-
@DaveyDaveDave said:
...I don't think anyone except people who just parrot what they hear on TV truly believes that switching the 'legal guns' switch on or off makes any difference at all.
FTFY.
There are a surprising number of people in the United States who actually do believe that flatly outlawing guns would stop or curtail gun violence. I went to college in a highly liberal area, and during that time I met a large number of such people. The reason for this mentality is, I think, that these people mentally (perhaps subconsciously) equate making guns illegal with making guns unavailable. Obviously, if there were zero guns in the United States, no one in the United States would get shot, unless they happen to be near the border and encounter a deranged Mexican. People who believe that outlawing guns would stop gun violence probably did not pay much attention in history class when the Prohibition era was being discussed.
-
@boh said:
With a gun you can kill someone from up to a mile away (with the right gun and conditions), but with a knife you have to be very close to the other guy, subjecting yourself to the fists, elbows, knees and feet of your intended victim.
If you had the kind of training to know the right gun and conditions to kill from that far away, you wouldn't even need to worry about carrying a permit. Also, criminals are all opportunistic. Where the gun gives them an opportunity to target a much wider range of victims, without it they would just take their knives to the throats of much weaker victims.
-
@DaveyDaveDave said:
Of course, you're quite right when you say that, "a person intending to murder will carry a gun whether it is legal or not", but by making it illegal, you've forced that person to break the law as soon as he steps out of his house, rather than when he pulls the trigger. To me, that gives passers-by, the Police, security guards or anyone else who might encounter our murderer *before* he gets to his target, a better chance of seeing something is amiss, alerting the necessary people and/or getting somewhere safe.
As has already been explained, since this is CONCEALED CARRY, the police can't determine who is carrying a gun unless they're careless (and this is already a CC violation subject to a fine) or they illegally search people.
