guns-as-a-solution-to-guns?

[Indy Lurker]

Guns are but a tool.

Guns are used to confront violence and crime.

This is why they are used by every police department in the united states.

Guns are unique among other tools in that they allow a physically weaker or disabled person to defend themselves with as much force as the strongest athlete.


Without guns, it would mostly be a matter of physical strength and fighting skills that determines the victor in a confrontation between criminal and law abiding citizen.

Since it is the criminal that choose the time, place and victim of the crime, it would rarely be in favor of the victim.

More importantly however, is that guns will never be removed from the United States. Such thinking is not based in fact.

The genie is already out of the bottle.

There are literally millions and millions of guns in the US, and billions and billions of rounds of ammunition.

Outlawing guns simply leave them in the hands of the criminals, and disarms the law abiding citizen. This just creates a force disparity in favor of the criminal. This is not merely supposition, but fact, and can be seen in places like Chicago and Washington DC where such laws have been enacted.


I will leave you with a quote from Cesare Beccaria who summed it up nicely in the late 1700's

(Cesare, Marquis of Beccaria-Bonesana (March 12, 1738 – November 28, 1794) was an Italian philosopher and politician best known for his treatise On Crimes and Punishments (1764), which condemned torture and the death penalty, and was a founding work in the field of penology.)



"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.

Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty... and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer?

Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventive but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree."

[east texas lib]

1. Firearms certainly work better than cease and desist orders or begging for your life, IMHO.

But opinions vary.;)

[armueller2001]

3. Some people prefer

to leave their family's safety and security to chance, and to not have an effective "Plan B" after calling the police.

I fully support them having that choice. I prefer to have the most effective self defense tool available.

[burrfoot]

2. Nicely put. Recommended. n/t

[PavePusher]

4. Driveby Unrec's. Very courageous... n/t

[GreenStormCloud]

5. K&R

[Tesha]

6. Please help me understand something

.. something quite basic about gun ownership - today - around the country.

Is there anywhere where guns should just simply not be allowed?


In NH the legislature is trying to replace a poorly written law about carrying weapons while in their building.
The Free-State people, who've purposely moved into our state as a group, are screaming about the 2nd.
Remember the Obama visit to Portsmouth where a protester carried a gun and a sign saying
"The tree of liberty must from time to time be refreshed with the blood...."?


Most NH citizens feel guns have their place in our society - but the actions of these people are starting to anger everyone.
As gun owners... where is the line drawn? and how do we keep these people from causing a big push back?

[GreenStormCloud]

7. The problem isn't guns, it is people.

Let us assume that you took away my guns. With a little bit of ingenuity, I would still be able to assassinate just about anyone I wanted to. It would cost me a few thousand in completely legal supplies that have legitimate other uses. Mass murder? Same story. Casualties would be in the tens of thousands.

The reason why I don't is not because of legal limitations, but because such actions are completely abhorrent to me. In fact, my last fight was when I was 19. I am now a senior citizen. For all those many years, I have been a peaceful person, and intend to stay peaceful. In the hands of a person like myself, there is no danger anywhere from my guns. It is similar with almost all legal gun owners. We have obeyed the law for such lengths of time, not for fear of punishment, but because that is simply the way we are. The real question isn't one of where guns should be allowed, but rather who should be allowed to have guns.

My guns, on me, would add to the safety of anyplace where I am.

The line on who is fine where it is now drawn, but better enforcement of that line is needed.

Leave the legal gun owners alone, go after the illegal gun owners.

Bloomberg's Mayors Against Illegal Guns makes the mistake of trying to disarm everyone under the guise of trying to disarm the criminal.

[Tesha]

9. I asked a specific question...

and you give me your general philosophy?

I'm asking honestly...

why fight a rule about no guns in a government building?

why antagonize people about a long held and perfectly understandable rule?


I need a specific answer for a specific question...

[eqfan592]

10. How can you understand the answer...

...without first understanding where the person is coming from? That simply makes little sense to me.

Explain why the rule is perfectly understandable? Given the extremely low crime rate among CCW holders, why would you force them to disarm themselves when entering a state building? It seems to me that this was a law looking for a problem, which is never a good form of governance.

EDIT: Also, the post that GSC responded to contained more than just a single specific question, which likely prompted GSC's response. So please don't be so quick to jump on people for their responses in the future. Such actions do little to aid in the promotion of rational discourse.

[dmallind]

11. I'll jump in if I may

And answer a question with a question. Why HAVE a rule about no guns in government buildings?

It's not sophistry - it's framing. The rules about where one can and cannot have guns are silly for exactly the reasons covered above - they will only affect those who follow rules. Assuming the fear is that people who disagree with current governments will use their guns against members thereof, you have to posit a person willing to kill but not willing to break rules about where he can have a gun in order to think such rules would do any good.

So in short why complain about the rule? Because it's pointless and self defeating. It essentially disarms people who have any need to go into government buildings during their day, because if they can't carry in there, they must do....what exactly? Leave a gun in the coat closet? On their car seat? Isn't it much more likely to be a problem there than on their person?

[Tesha]

18. so you believe

that only "evil" people shoot in anger or by accident?

[GreenStormCloud]

25. A good person shooting in anger is extremely rare, almost nonexistent.

Accidents are also fairly rare among good people. We respect guns and follow the basic safety rules.

People who have guns illegally are a different story, but the are already lawbreakers.

[Tesha]

28. I simply don't believe this

[GreenStormCloud]

35. Criminologists have known it for over a hundred years.

It has been confirmed by study after study. I suggested an excellent book to read that dealt with the subject. I can suggest others if you wish. The idea of a normal person suddenly cooking off is so rare that it is almost doesn't exist.

Saying that you don't believe it without having examined the evidence suggests that you have a closed mind. You want to hang on to a belief that is closer to faith that goes against the facts. It is like the people who cling to Creationism because they are afraid the facts will hurt their Faith. I say that a faith that requires one to ignore facts is a faith that is not worth having.

[Tesha]

42. I simply don't believe this because

I do not believe that there are good people and bad people, and that you are one or the other.


If you have a link to these studies please provide it.


A guy I know dropped his gun - it shot through the apartment next door and into a child's pillow. The kid was at school thank goodness.
A lady in Boston called the police about being shot by an intruder - she'd been handling it and she shot herself.
A kid down the street shot his dad after a lifetime of abuse.

Not every shooting is done by someone who's "bad".

[TPaine7]

53. Here are some citations

Ordinary People

Another scientific fact: ordinary people rarely murder. Very rarely.

Local and national studies dating to the 1890s show that in almost every case murderers
are aberrants exhibiting life histories of violence and crime, psychopathology, substance
abuse, and other dangerous behaviors. Looking only to prior crime records, roughly 90
percent of adult murders had adult records, with an average adult criminal career of six
or more years, including four major adult felonies.{37}

We are often told that most murder victims know their assailants. We are supposed to infer that normal,
law-abiding people kill their friends and loved ones because a sudden rage—accompanied by the
availability of a gun—is too severe a temptation. This may be true of gang members, drug dealers, and
armed robbers, but it is very rare among normal people. And we are never told the rest of the story—
national data on acquaintance gun murders in homes show that “the most common victim offender
relationship” was “where both parties knew each other because of prior illegal transactions.”{38}

The most rational response is to ban felons, the insane and habitual drug abusers from possessing guns.
Harsh general restrictions are inefficient. A National Institute of Justice funded study concluded that “there
is no evidence anywhere to suggest that reducing the availability of firearms in general likewise reduces
their availability to persons with criminal intent. . . .”{39}

Source: My open letter to Obama at www.obamaonsecond.com

Sources cited in the letter's footnotes

{37} Don Kates, introduction to Armed: New Perspectives on Gun Control, (New York: Prometheus Books,
2001), 20. (Emphasis in original.)
{38} Ibid., 21.
{39} James D. Wright, Peter Rossi and Kathleen Daly, Under the Gun: Weapons, Crime and Violence in the
United States (New York: Aldine, 1983), 137-8. (Italics in original.) Quoted in Ibid., 28.

[eqfan592]

58. Lots of good info on this topic here.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvmurd.html

[TPaine7]

61. I agree with a lot of what you say here, but I think your opinions may be modified

by substituting statistical data for anecdotal evidence and your honest, honorable, and decent (but flawed IMO) intuition.

I do not believe that there are good people and bad people, and that you are one or the other.

I'm not sure I follow completely, but I believe that while there are no perfect people and few totally depraved people, there are people who purposefully turn their backs on their consciences and set out to hurt others for the entertainment or the ego trip.


A guy I know dropped his gun - it shot through the apartment next door and into a child's pillow. The kid was at school thank goodness.

That gun was either old, defective or your friend is covering his butt. Modern guns don't fire when dropped. I am considerably less concerned about a child being shot because someone dropped a gun than I am about backing up over the neighbor's kid while he plays in my driveway. The odds of the latter are much higher.

A lady in Boston called the police about being shot by an intruder - she'd been handling it and she shot herself.

Stupidity, carelessness, ignorance and incompetence when dealing with many common household items can kill. Mixing bleach and ammonia when cleaning almost killed someone I know and love. Accidental shooting of oneself with a gun is exceedingly rare. I think your reaction to this incident is a function of your gut-level feeling for guns.

A kid down the street shot his dad after a lifetime of abuse.

I don't know the details, but that may have been totally justified. If so, I hope the kid gets all the help and attention he needs. I feel for him.

No sarcasm intended, but would you feel better if he had killed his dad using another method? Once again, I think your reaction to this incident is a function of your gut-level feeling for guns.

Not every shooting is done by someone who's "bad".

Perfectly true. There are genuine accidents. And some shooting are justified--some even heroic. But sane, ordinary people rarely snap and shoot someone out of rage (please see my post #53).

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

68. So your justification is 2 accidents one without injury and a possibly justified shooting? LOL.

[PavePusher]

44. Then provide evidence for your assertion. n/t

[dmallind]

26. I believe only criminals will kill in anger, and there are trival numbers of true gun accidents

What are normally termed accidental discharges are negligence, which is a criminal act where deadly weapons are concerned. True accidents would be the failing of a well-maintained safety device due to metal fatigue etc. Guns have multiple safety features and are such old and well-tested technology that accvidents never happen. "It just went off" is 99.9999% of the time a lie.

[Indy Lurker]

72. There are three types of people

For this type of discussion.

Good, Bad, and Crazy.


By first grade (age 6-7) you should be able to control your physical actions. Certainly by age 18 you should be able to control your actions and know the difference between right and wrong.

Shooting someone who is not an imminent threat to you or another outside of military combat is simply wrong, an evil act.

It is no different than: running over someone in your car, pushing someone off a roof, stabbing someone, putting poison in their coffee, choking a person to death, or beating someone to death with a 2x4 or hammer. These things are not done by "good" people no matter how angry they are.

To point a gun at another person and pull the trigger when you or another are not in danger is simply evil. Have you ever actually tried to kill someone for making you angry? The thought should be revolting.

By contrast, "bad" people will kill or harm another for monetary gain or pleasure.

If you kill someone for making you angry, you are evil.


That leaves us with "crazy" A relatively small group of folks who truly can not control their actions, or who lack a firm enough grasp on reality to know what is a reasonable threat and what's not. These folks should not have a gun. I don't think anyone here thinks they should. Through due process, they should have their right to firearms denied.


You also mention accident. This occurs, but is extremely rare. Certainly "good" people make mistakes, if the most basic firearm training is followed, such accidents would be eliminated. With such a low incident rate, this should be a non issue.

[GreenStormCloud]

21. You don't understand.

It is people who are dangerous, not the instruments they use.

[Tesha]

29. A dangerous person

can hit you or punch you or choke you... they have to be close for a prolonged amount of time...

a dangerous person with a gun can kill in the blink of an eye from great distances.


The instrument multiplies the dangerousness of the person a thousandfold.

[GreenStormCloud]

39. A prolonged time? You don't know much about violence.

A fatal blow that crushes the skull with a club takes a long time? How long does it take to smash a hammer into a skull?

How long does it take to crush the larynx with the edge of the hand?

How long does it take to gouge out the eyes?

How long does it take to plunge a knife into the heart?

I am a senior citizen. What are my odds of being able to fight off such an attack without my guns?

I do not fear a person specifically targeting me go be murdered. In those types of murders, the killer usually knows the target. The connections is usually a mutual engagement in related criminal activity. The prime example would be drug dealers fighting over territory. Since I am not involved in any type of illegal business, I am very safe from targeted murder.

Nor do I fear domestic violence from my wife, nor she from me. Gentle loving couples don't suddenly explode into violence at each other. That is purely in the movies.

I do recognize the possibility of random violence from muggers, burglars, and home invaders. IOW - random crime. That type of crime, to complete itself will have to get close to me anyway. It is rather hard to rob someone from 100 yards away. Such crimes are up close and personal crimes. It is to protect ourselves from that element that we are armed.

[PavePusher]

45. And you always know the intentions of those in close proximity to you?

Distance has nothing to do with it.

[Indy Lurker]

74. And since they choose the time and place of the attack

They will make sure conditions are favorable to hit you or punch you or choke you.

They will select a time when you are alone and no one is available to help you.

Which is better, unarmed vs an attacker who initiates a surprise attack with a hammer.

or armed (gun) and confronted by an armed (gun)attacker?

[PavePusher]

41. Why do they need a special rule?

Are some pigs truely more equal than other pigs?

[X_Digger]

14. Prison / Jail / mental facility would be the only place I'd disallow

People who have demonstrated the willingness to break the social contract, or those without the cognitive ability to have good judgment- those are the only places that I wouldn't carry were it legal.

[Tesha]

19. That may be precisely why they're not allowed...

> Prison / Jail / *MENTAL FACILITY* would be the only place I'd disallow...

That may be precisely why they're not allowed on the NH lege! ;) / 2

Tesha

[PavePusher]

46. Touche!

By that reasoning, no government official should be armed.

You may be on to something there....

:evilgrin:

[Tesha]

20. You believe that

there are only good people or bad people.


I believe some people make poor decisions under the emotion of the moment.
And how do we identify the folks on your list if they haven't "demonstrated" yet?

[GreenStormCloud]

27. They can be identified.

Read The Gift of Fear. The good person who suddenly snaps into a killing rage with guns is a myth. Such a violent person will have had previous violent rages and will have a history of violence. Almost always their violence will have resulted in convictions. A person who is subject to such violence will always have predictors (DeBeck's word) that can be used to tell if they are likely to explode.

What you are imagining is a person who makes good decisions for a lifetime and then suddenly turns into a rage filled murderer. Doesn't happen that way in real life, only in the movies.

[Tesha]

30. behavior is not black and white

people can feel trapped, explosively angry, or horribly afraid...

[GreenStormCloud]

49. Violent behavior is still predictable.

If a person has anger management issues, those issues will express themselves fairly early in life, and he will have a police record long before his first murder. It is extremely rare for a person to have a murder as his first crime.

Horribly afraid? If the fear is realistic to the situation and reasonable, then you are talking about self-defense. If someone has broken into my home, yes, I will be horribly afraid, and will respond with lethal violence - I will shoot the burglar. If a mugger has begun to stalk me, I will prepare to defend myself, and will do so if he actually attacks.

If a person fear is irrational, then we are discussing a mentally unstable person, and such people are already banned from gun possession.

[Indy Lurker]

75. behavior is black and white

It's ok to feel "trapped, explosively angry, or horribly afraid" but these are feelings, not behaviors.

When you pull the trigger of a firearm pointed at a person who you know is not a reasonable threat, you are committing a "black" act, an evil act.

If you are acting to preserve life, or stop a threat to another's life, it is a good act.

[X_Digger]

33. I don't subscribe to the theory that..

.. we're all just a bad hair day away from going on a murder spree.

People are generally good. We all experience stress and emotion, we all deal with it in a number of ways. Individuals who 'go postal' don't usually 'just snap' one day, hollywood and popular fiction aside. According to the DOJ, over 95% of those who commit murders have previous incarcerations for some kind of violent crime. Almost all of the remaining 5% have had treatment, involuntary commitment, or exhibit signs of serious mental illness prior to the murders they've committed.

On the other hand, those who get concealed carry permits (and I realize this may not apply in NH, I don't know the licensing requirements there) have demonstrated a rather strong adherence to the law, in spite of the fact that whether or not they are carrying at any given time is not visible to the naked eye. They have a lower crime rate generally than almost any other group you care to identify (the general public, police officers, doctors, politicians- okay maybe not nuns).

Those who would do us harm represent a small but determined minority of the people one is likely to bump into on the street. Any concentration of these kinds of people (prisons / jails / mental institutions) is a place that I can see a legitimate interest in denying them the possibility of acquisition of a tool that they could use to harm themselves or others.

There are lots of 'emotional' situations- would you recommend disarming people at tax preparation businesses? Home Owner Association meetings? Crowded interstates?

Regarding your last statement, "And how do we identify the folks on your list if they haven't 'demonstrated' yet?"- I'm not sure what you mean. Restricting weapons at the front gates of a prison or mental facility requires no 'list'. I do support the 1968 Gun Control Act that makes felons and those adjudicated mentally incompetent ineligible to possess firearms. Those 'lists' are maintained by the state. I don't see expanding the list to locations where one might be 'emotional' as valid.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

67. So you propose restricting peoples right because of what you think they might do?

Despite the fact they have no record of violence for their entire lives.

[PavePusher]

40. Specific question...

Why should the servants of the people be treated as a higher/more priviliged class than the ones they purportedly serve?

Edit: What are they doing so wrong that they feel so fearful of the ones they serve?

[Indy Lurker]

64. Yes.

"Guns should just simply not be allowed" where other security measures are in place. Such as a court house, or a jail. or where is is dangerous to discharge a firearm, such as a natural gas storage facility.


Privately, anyone should be able to forbid guns on their property, but if it is a public space, that is funded with tax dollars, and therefor belongs to everyone, the right to carry a gun should not be restricted, unless equally effective (guard / cop with a gun) security measure is in place.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

66. Certain people shouldn't be allowed to have guns in certain places.

[east texas lib]

69. Most certainly! (nt)

:o

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

70. Why can't tesha see how simple it is?

[RussWorld]

8. God made a big man and

God made a small man but Dr. Colt made them even....

[Tesha]

12. Help me out here, please?

This is important to me...


The no-gun rule has been on the book for many years... through both D and R administrations. It is now just being rewritten to make the language legal.
The visitor's gallery in the State House is crowded and small, and is a place that sees very emotional discussions.
There are guards already there, and it's in a safe city.


Why don't gun owners support this intelligent continuation of a old rule?



(I'm not against guns or gun owners - I fully understand the use of guns, the need for guns, and the people who own them.
What I don't get why these same people resist sensible rules.)

[armueller2001]

13. You're missing the point

There's nothing sensible about the rule.

[Tesha]

16. so you honestly believe

that anyone should be able to carry their guns everywhere.


having your teeth cleaned?
at church?
with the president?


there should be no rules around it at all.... why?

don't tell me that you can be trusted - I'm talking about a population of people.

[eqfan592]

24. Did this specific rule deal with any or all of this situations?

If not, then why do you bring them into the discussion?

[Tesha]

31. my point is

that there are places that no gun should be allowed

[eqfan592]

34. If that's your assertion, fair enough.

I doubt you'll find many here to wouldn't agree that there are, indeed, certain places where guns should not be allowed.

But when making up that list of places, you'll have to provide reasoning for it, along with evidence to support the effectiveness of such legislation.

[rd_kent]

52. My question is

WHY?

[dmallind]

32. Nope - but exceptions should only be where safety is guaranteed.

Safety is not guaranteed at churches (why should churchesa be speciala anyway?) or at dentists.

Let's consider prisons. Guns aren't allowed inside the prisons themselves (guardtowers etc are secured areas outside the prisons).

Obviously all entry and exits are strictly controlled. All visitora can be (and hopefully ARE) searched and disarmed. In such a situation then no armed threat is possible so no armed response need be possible. Same goes for intimate meetings with the prez. I suspect that visitors are always disarmed. Larger crowds at outside events he attends? Not so much.

So your statehouse question is a possible exception too but ONLY if a) all visitors are checked for weapons and disarmed every time b) There are no uncontrolled entrances and exits and c) there is a secured depository where guns can be stored and returned to the owner upon leaving. I question the need for this - anyone emotionally unbalanced enough to KILL because tehy don't agree with government policy or debate, even in the heat of the moment, should hopefully already be barred from gun ownership and in any event is unbalanced enough to seek out a more McVeigh-like method.

The whole point of being armed is as an insurance policy against an exceptionally unlikely but catastrophic event that almost all of us will thankfully never encounter. But it's still sensible to have insurance. I don't let my fire insurance lapse even if I move to a nice neighborhood in a wet state with great building codes. Fires can still happen. I would only let my fire insurance lapse if fire were impossible. If my entire house were built out of fireproof materials or surrounded by fireproof barriers.

[rd_kent]

51. yes, whenever and where ever.

Why not? Unless someone has already proved they are a criminal and not to be trusted, then why not?

I am sure that there are a few, specific situations and places that should prohibit guns, but those places should be the exception, not the rule. If one feels that a specific situation or location should be gun-free, then argue the merits of that assertion based on that particular situation.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

76. I believe a Secret Service agent should be allowed to carry a firearm around the President.

Why wouldn't you want them to be able to?

[eqfan592]

15. "Why don't gun owners support this intelligent continuation of a old rule?"

That line right there shows that you are not coming to this with an open mind. You're making assumptions that the rule is something worthy of support and is inherently "intelligent."

I'm not slamming you or anything for doing that, but it is the truth. If you wish to remain open minded about these issues (especially if you wish to try and understand those you disagree with) then you must be willing to accept the possibility that your assumption is, in fact, not correct.

[Tesha]

17. open mind?

I'd like a rule that keeps all people from carrying their guns into an emotionally charged meeting!


tell me how this is a closed mind....

[ManiacJoe]

22. The problem with laws like this

is that they are usually poorly written and poorly enforced.

The purpose of carrying a firearm is for self defense. Any time you go somewhere where management/owners attempt to disarm you, those doing the disarming have a moral obligation to do your defending should the need arise.

This works well at court houses (a place of guaranteed conflict) because the armed guards disarm EVERYONE (not just the Good Guys) and actually do the defending as needed.

Poorly written laws tend to disarm only the Good Guys since the Bad Guys tend to just ignore the law. Poorly enforced laws do not disarm the Bad Guys and do not have anyone around to do the defending of the disarmed Good Guys.

[eqfan592]

23. Umm, what?

Simply stating such a thing as you did there isn't, by itself, a demonstration of an open or closed mind as your previous statement was.

As for the rule, if you wish to have such a rule, then you would have to provide evidence demonstrating that such a rule is actually necessary, based off of evidence that you would provide. You would have to show that concealed carry permit holders are more likely to be a threat in such an environment, as well as what the rule would to do actually prevent people who do wish to do harm from entering the meeting with a firearm anyway.

[PavePusher]

50. Easy. Provide evidence. n/t

[GreenStormCloud]

59. So in such a meeting, a young strong person who gets angry will...

be able to beat the crap out of me, a senior citizen. No thanks, unless you are willing to provide a guard to protect me against those who could do violence to me. Since you can't put guards everywhere, I choose to be able to defend myself if I have to, with guns if the threat is that serious.

[PavePusher]

48. If you can point out how many times the "emotional discussions"...

have devolved into physical violence in the State House, you might have a talking point.

But I doubt it is a statistically significant issue.

It is not in the job description of "legislaturist" to restrict Civil Rights.

[Indy Lurker]

73. Only the "good" guy follow the rule

Here's an example from Illinois:

The sound of gunfire rang out in the state Capitol building in Springfield the afternoon of Sept. 20, 2004.

William Wozniak, a 51-year-old unarmed security guard in the Statehouse, was shot in the chest and killed by Derek W. Potts, a 24-year-old University of Illinois Springfield dropout with a history of mental illness. Potts had walked through the north entrance to the building with a stolen 12-gauge shotgun and fired at Wozniak at close range.

Potts fled the building after the shooting, and police caught him the next day walking in the 300 block of West Ash Street.

Five years later, Potts is institutionalized and still considered unfit to stand trial.

Measures to increase security at the Capitol remain in place today. Metal detectors and X-ray machines were added, and a new police force was created. Almost everyone entering the building now must go through security or display a special identification badge available to state employees and other frequent visitors.

Wozniak, a married father of two from Petersburg, had been a guard at the Statehouse since 1986. He was eulogized as a husband and father who always had a positive attitude and who had an aptitude for things mechanical as well as for playing musical instruments.

A judge in 2006 found that Potts, originally from Olney, had been suffering from mental illness at the time of the shooting. Potts is incarcerated at the Alton Mental Health Center, where he is treated for conditions including bipolar and schizoaffective disorders.

http://www.sj-r.com/carousel/x141511602/No-8-Story-of-the-Decade-Guard-killed-in-Capitol-shooting

***************************************

The "bad" guy did not follow the law. He walked into the statehouse and killed an unarmed guard. The building now has metal detectors, and the guards are now armed.

[Tesha]

36. well, my mistake

I thought I'd hear some intelligent support for sensible gun rules here.

I mean, you all have your personal gun rules right? Keep it clean - keep it safe - keep in good training.
I'll bet you tell your kids never to point a gun at a person, and you always make sure the chamber's empty.

but...
Why do you believe that every person in the country has the same good sense as you?
and why is it OK for the lazy or stupid or drunk or angry take a gun anywhere they like?

[TPaine7]

37. It is absolutely *not* OK for the drunk to take guns anywhere in public n/t

[Tesha]

43. so who's going to stop

him before he goes to the State House for the meeting on Marriage Equality?

[eqfan592]

47. Not a law, that's for certain.

Laws do not stop people from doing things they are intent on doing. This is, in fact, one of the reasons why many argue to allow people who have gone through the training and background checks to be allowed to carry in such environments, as the laws themselves cannot effectively protect people by themselves.

[rd_kent]

56. And you think a LAW will stop him?

[TPaine7]

63. Hopefully State House security would stop any drunk person

from entering, even if he had a concealed weapon that they couldn't see. When arresting him for public intoxication, they would frisk him, find the weapon, and add the charge of being in possession of a gun while under the influence.

He would lose his right to arms.

[eqfan592]

38. Again, more indications of a closed mind.

You did not come in here to hear some intelligent support for sensible gun rules. You came here to hear support for what YOU think of as "sensible gun rules," and instead you were shown why those rules may not be automatically so sensible.

It's not a matter of believing that every person in the country has the same good sense as I do, but rather a matter that they should not be treated as a rage explosion waiting to happen simply because an extremely small percentage of them have had that happen to them. This is akin to treating everybody as criminals become some of us will commit a crime. It's not very sensible in the least.

I sincerely encourage you to let go of what you think is "sensible" based on your apparently unsubstantiated beliefs, and attempt to form your opinions based on evidence, reasoning and logic.

[Tesha]

57. open mind?

You keep using that -phrase-. I do not think it means what you think it means.

an open mind is more than one that will bend to your will -



I came here to hear from real gun owners on the subject of inappropriate places to carry guns - I get you with your personal attacks.

I heard from others that they themselves are always careful.
I heard that the chances are high that all gun owners are going to do the right thing.
I heard that almost everyone here believes that there should be zero restrictions.

Fine. I asked. You answered.

[eqfan592]

60. Please point to where I personally attacked you?

Please state where I said that an open mind must be one that will "bend to my will?" I never said nor even implied any such things. You came here with a set of preconceived notions, and when those notions were challenged, instead of evaluating the challenges rationally, you became defensive. That IS a sign of a closed mind (and yes, it means exactly what I think it means). If you don't think our challenges have merit, then counter them using reason and evidence.

Also, where did you hear that "almost everyone here believes that there should be zero restrictions?" I, and several others, have stated exactly the opposite in fact. We just don't believe that there should be as many restrictions as YOU believe, and we have provided you with our reasoning as to WHY.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

77. Please point to the posts that indicate almost everyone here believes in zero restrictions.

I'll be waiting.

[SteveM]

78. As a kid, I never saw a sign saying: "No Guns Allowed." Anywhere...

Perhaps there was some moldy law in the archives of Tallahassee, but I am unaware of it.

Walking the red brick streets of the courthouse square in Gainesville, Florida, in the late 50s, I would see some fellow carrying a shotgun, broken open with a red shop towel tied around the action; his signal that the gun was not operational. He was heading to one of the gun/hardware shops in the center of town.

This is more than sentimental reminiscence. It is an indication of how much threat folks felt from those with guns, and a tacit acknowledgment that laws barring such displays/carrying were not going to do much. It is worth noting that this was the tail-end of the Jim Crow era when blacks were barred from having arms by both de jure and de facto measures; this may have been small comfort to some whites who felt they would otherwise live in a town with "armed Negroes."

I will concede (simply because it isn't worth the time and effort to argue about it) that courtrooms (when used for trials) would be a place not to carry.

Frankly, I wish the authorities would remove "No Guns Allowed" signs in schools, malls, universities, etc., not only because they are ineffective, but they could invite in some slaughter-punk who sees easy pickings. The NY Times reported a short time after the Columbine shootings that Dylan Klebold's last conversation with his Dad was over the then-pending concealed-carry legislation in Colorado. Both agreed it should be opposed. I suspect for rather divergent reasons.

[PavePusher]

54. Provide evidence.

And stop generating strawmen. I've got enough mulch on my garden...

[rd_kent]

55. Why should the lazy, stupid, drunk or angry be the basis of restricting MY rights?

By your logic, since those SAME people commit the same types of crimes with their cars, then you should not be allowed to have a car.

[GreenStormCloud]

62. No, I keep the chambers loaded.

In a self-defense situation, an empty chamber would slow down my response.

You have heard a LOT of intelligent discussion regarding guns. You are just unhappy that the posters don't agree with you. You have discarded some of the facts - YES, FACTS - that we have shown because they conflict with your faith-based beliefs. For me, I feel like I am trying to explain Evolution to a Creationist. (Yes, I have attempted that numerous times.)

[Tim01]

65. Kay & Arr entee.

[Euromutt]

71. Guns aren't the problem, and they aren't the solution

The whole notion of "guns as a (proposed) solution to guns," as posited by sharesunited (among others), is a fallacious argument:
first, in that it presumes that the availability of firearms is a driving factor in violent crime;
second, in that it presumes that curtailing the legal availability of firearms to private citizens would significantly restrict the supply to the criminal element;
third, in that it falsely attributes to the pro-RKBA side a claim that private ownership of defensive firearms will solve violent crime.

We can see from countries with more stringent gun laws than the United States--such as the UK and the Netherlands--that violent crime not only occurs at higher rates than in the US, but that use of firearms in violent crime has been becoming more widespread. Where once guns were almost exclusively used by "professional" organized criminals on each other, the past fifteen to twenty years has seen a steady increase in the use of firearms by "amateurs" against each other and against regular "upright, uptight" citizens, despite there being no relaxing of the gun laws. The guns have been (and continue to be) smuggled in from abroad in response to demand. So evidently gun laws don't prevent those with criminal intent from acquiring and using guns.

Given that tons of drugs are smuggled into the United States every year, smuggling in firearms and ammunition would be perfectly feasible, and it would be done if there were sufficient demand to make it lucrative. Even if you could tightly control private ownership of firearms in the US, and make all of the currently privately owned firearms magically disappear overnight, the American criminal element would find a way to rearm themselves with smuggled firearm within months.

Given that guns don't cause crime, there must be other causes. Socio-economic inequality within a society is a leading factor in crime, and that's the sort of thing that needs to be addressed if we actually want to do something about crime. Restricting private ownership of firearms isn't going to do that, and at the same time, increased private ownership and carrying of firearms isn't going to fix the problem either. For example, while it's well understood that relatively few residential burglaries in the US are "hot" burglaries (i.e. occurring while the occupants are home), and that this results from a deterrent effect of gun ownership, the American residential burglary rate is not particularly low: guns in Americans homes may deter "hot" burglaries, but that results in an increase in "cold" burglaries, not in a reduction in burglaries overall.

What firearms do do is give the victim of a violent crime additional options for defending him- or herself and preventing that crime from being completed. Maybe more concealed carriers would provide an additional deterrent effect against muggings and the like, but there's no solid evidence to support that hypothesis (John Lott's massive number-crunch in More Guns, Less Crime suffers from the problem that it's a study in econometric modeling; other researchers, with a slightly different model, have come up with contradictory findings, and there's no reason to believe that either model is more valid than the other). But that doesn't alter the fact that every citizen who manages to use a firearm to prevent the completion of a violent crime represents a prevention of material loss and/or physical trauma due to criminal activity, and that in itself should be a good cause.