Questions for the gun skeptical members of this forum…..

[VoteProgressive]

First off, I am new here but would like to say I think the gun skeptical members of this forum are 100% welcome and I respect your opinion. I understand a lot of your concerns. And this forum would be rather useless without opposing opinions.

People calling each other “sheepel” or “gun–nuts” are not helpful from either side and hopefully will be alerted and locked/deleted.

The USA does have a higher murder rate than most other countries but a lower violent crime rate than others. I myself would like to know why the murder rate is so high. But I honestly think the lower violent crime rate is because of the fear criminals have of armed citizens. And at this point, removing handguns from this society is a lost cause.

I was a gun skeptic less than two years ago. Then I started researching the CCW topic from all sides. My conclusion is that CCW license holders are an extremely responsible bunch. I tried to find many statistics proving that the CCW laws caused more crime or more shootings and could not find any. I read many books, especially from Gary Kleck, a criminologist who was a gun skeptic before writing his books and came to the conclusion that CCW is helpful and a deterrent to crime. Look up his book and read them if you have a chance.

I have some questions that I hope can be discussed logically. My questions for the gun skeptic crowd is

1. Why do you want to prevent honest, felony free citizens from carrying a weapon when thousands of criminals carry them illegally daily and use them to harm people?

2. What proof do you have that CCW laws have caused more shootings or crime?

3. If you want to ban the sale of handguns, how would you prevent the 90 million current handguns from ending up in the criminals hands?

4. Are you against guns in the house or only guns on the street?

I am curious where all the gun skeptical people stand on these issues. I would like to hear more general answers about why you are gun skeptical and how you would solve the gun issue.

I look forward, hopefully, to a friendly discussion.

[provis99]

1. "anti-gun crowd"?

Your hypocrisy and contempt is noted.

[VoteProgressive]

3. Please correct me then. What would you like me to call you?

[provis99]

4. since you asked, call us the "pro-life crowd"?

[rrneck]

6. I'm a pro life gun owner.

And I'm pro choice. Regarding abortion and guns. :)

[VoteProgressive]

7. I am seeing maybe you do not want to have a logical discussion. Which is fine with me....

this post was not for someone who just wants to get angry. But thanks for the comments. It proved my point.

[provis99]

8. since you decided to start by insulting us

You didn't want a logical discussion either.

[VoteProgressive]

9. I was anti-gun at one point, never offended me. Pro-Life is a insult to.....

gun owners because you are labeling us as anti-life. So how is your comment not an insult?

[provis99]

11. you insulted us. An insult deserves an insult.

How would you like if if I claimed you opinion was "100% welcome" and then slurred people concerned over the 2nd Amendment as being just a "pro-gun crowd"?

[VoteProgressive]

12. You can call any of us pro-gun. It will not offend any of us......

And the fact you are using something small like "anti-gun" to get mad about shows me you have NOTHING else to add.

Done with you until you actually provide a clear argument and not just complain about your feeling being hurt.

[VoteProgressive]

36. Your lack of any logical response says all I need to know. Thanks! nt

[rl6214]

21. How is anti gun and insult

or do you object to the word "crowd"?

[rl6214]

20. Pro life

anti choice/abortion?

[Kolesar]

10. A skeptic...eom

[VoteProgressive]

13. Thanks you for the logical suggestion, I have changed my post. nt

[Kolesar]

19. It's much broader than that. I am propaganda-skeptical, bullshit-skeptical

...panacea-skeptical and skeptical of the cause and effect claimed by strident regulation haters on this forum. Thin arguments, but thick on insult

So, there is no such term as "gun skeptic". I am quite sure that guns exist. I have fired many.

[spin]

17. The term "anti-gun" might cause your post to be locked or deleted ..

as it does seem to anger those who I call anti-RKBA.

I personally don't see the problem but back in the good old days when this forum was much less polite, those who favor RKBA took a lot of insults from their opponents.

I have a thick skin and I always would smile when I was insulted as that is a good indication that I had won the debate.

[VoteProgressive]

18. Thanks for the back story. I changed it to skeptical. I am not sure it will help.

[spin]

22. Skeptical is a good term. (n/t)

[JustFiveMoreMinutes]

2. I'm not really anti-gun, but my one 'issue'...

you say "CCW license holders are an extremely responsible bunch"

and I have no problems with EXTREMELY responsible bunch doing it.

It's the loosely responsible if at all folks who percieve their manhood is enhanced due to 'carrying' who sit beside me in a bar drinking ... we have DUIs.. SUI? (shooting while???)

And even with CCW, unless you keep it out handy cocked and ready... a baseball bat to the head from someone behind you makes the CCW worthless.

So... all I'm saying is I'm not that secure with your first assumption.

[VoteProgressive]

5. I see your point.....

If you get millions of CCW holders some of them will not be good CCW holders. No different than bad police. You are bound to have a few loose cannons. But they have committed crimes at a FAR less rate than the average citizen.

The CCW holder who is drinking is a bar and above .08 is not better than the driver above .08 I agree. But it has not been a real problem according to the state that keep track of the issues.

Remember no CCW holder can have a DUI recently and keep/get their license. So I think it weeds out the troubled drinkers from the beginning.

And of course a CCW holder can be ambushed, but it would happen even if he did not have a gun. Are you saying there are no times when a gun would help?

[spin]

16. Can you show any incidents where a person who had a carry permit ...

got drunk in a bar and shot someone.

I did a quick search and all I could find was one incident where a person with a CCW stopped massacre in a bar.

Three Men Killed in Winnemucca Shooting on Sunday
Sunday, May 25, 2008 11:35 PM EST

Deputies with the Humboldt County Sheriff's Office are investigating a shooting in Winnemucca early Sunday morning that left three people dead and others injured.

The shooting happened at the Player's Bar & Grill on South Grass Valley Road.

Investigators say a feud between two local families is behind the early-morning shooting inside the bar. Three men from Winnemucca died from gunshot wounds, and two others are in critical condition at the hospital.

Deputies say about 2:25 a.m., 30-year-old Ernesto Villa Gomez walked into the bar and starting shooting. 20-year-old Jose Torres and his 19-year-old brother Margarito Torres were killed. When Villa Gomez was reloading his semi-automatic gun, a man from Reno took out a gun and shot Villa Gomez. That man has a concealed weapons permit.
http://www.ktvn.com/Global/story.asp?s=8378732

I also searched and didn't find any reports of a person who had a permit being hit in the head from behind by a baseball bat. Perhaps your Google foo is better than mine. It certainly could happen especially if the person with the permit was not practicing situational awareness. Most people that I know who carry concealed are more aware of their environment than people who do not have one.

[GreenStormCloud]

23. The idea is to NOT let yourself get hit on the head from behind.

People who are anti-gun are always ready to concoct scenarios in which the criminal enjoys an absolute advantage and then act as if that scenario was always the way crime happens.

When I am walking from a store to my car in the parking lot I keep a watch all around me, including behind. Some guy trying to come up behind me will get my attention, especially if he has a baseball bat.

In most states it is illegal to drink while armed.

[buddysmellgood]

14. Wow, this is going well.

[VoteProgressive]

15. LOL

[Starboard Tack]

24. Hey, good luck here. I like your style. Your handling the abuse well and

I would love to have a civilized conversation with you, but as I'm sure you've realized by now, it isn't that easy around here. Lots of rigidity and nasty comments from all sides, but we can try. I find your posts to be thoughtful, independent and not reactionary. Maybe tomorrow. I'm a little exhausted right now. Feel like I've been fending off a posse of rabid dogs today and the cavalry never showed up.

[VoteProgressive]

25. Look forward to it! We can do it via PMs too. Might be easier!

[Starboard Tack]

26. Will do! Going to sleep now. Peace

[ileus]

27. To answer all your questions : Because guns kill people

[chibajoe]

28. Would you be willing to conceed that, in actuality

guns are used to kill people? As much as people anthropomorphize an inanimate object, when it is all said and done, the thing is still an inanimate object and is incapable of doing anything without some level of human interaction.

[one-eyed fat man]

29. Explain to me please!

Why should the lawless have exclusive province to guns? That is the inevitable result of denying them to the law-abiding, always has been; always will be.

Why should it be incumbent on me to make a criminal's life less stressful and "simply give them what they want" then fervently hope they will, in their infinite mercy, decide not to hurt me?

Does the advice to "...just give them what they want..." still hold if the crime in question is rape?

What are your recommendations for a woman in such a circumstance to "get up off that pussy" while maintaining her dignity?

In a homicide trial the jury has only two issues to resolve:
1) did the defendant kill the decedent and,
2) did the decedent need killing?

As far as I am concerned, if the decedent arrived at that state as the result of their erstwhile intended victim resisting their depredations the response is emphatically affirmative.

[GreenStormCloud]

30. Some people need killing. N/T

[VoteProgressive]

32. Wow, please tell me your argument is not just that. nt

[one-eyed fat man]

37. It's a good argument and has legal precedent.

Carico v. Commonwealth, 70 Ky. (7 Bush) 124 (1870)

Text"Like the sword of Damocles, the threatened danger is continually impending every moment and everywhere. The threatened man may be waylaid or otherwise attacked unawares without the possibility of defense or of escape, and may never, day or night, feel safe, or actually be so, while his enemy lives, who whenever he may see him or wherever he may find him may be anxious and able to kill him. And does either human or divine law require such prolonged agony and peril; or can the best and most prudent men suicidably forbear to strike for riddance, if they have the courage to defend themselves, in the only way of secure and lasting escape?"

As mentioned earlier, when you get right down to it...

"In a homicide trial the jury has only two issues to resolve:
1) did the defendant kill the decedent and,
2) did the decedent need killing?"

[cleanhippie]

31. I hope you are learning a lesson here, VP. The anti-2A group are just unable to create a rational

argument to support their ideology. You asked some honest and straightforward questions, and all you got in return were blatant attempts at obfuscation, deflection, hyperbole and derision.

In a sense, anti-2A folks are a lot like religious fundamentalists; they hold their beliefs very close and are unable and unwilling to allow those beliefs to be changed, even in the face of directly contradicting facts and evidence.

It is interesting to play this game though, as the Second Amendment only continues to get stronger and stronger, States become more liberal with their CCW laws, gun ownership continues to rise, crimes continues to fall, and the "blood running in the streets" continues to fail to materialize.

[VoteProgressive]

33. I was hoping for some real discussion. I still think "Starboard Tack" might be the guy! nt

[cleanhippie]

34. I think you are not thinking then.

That poster has yet to break from the rest of that herd, at least according to the posts I see. But hey, if you have hopes for that one, rock on.

You DID see this OP and his subsequent replies, right?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=394513&mesg_id=394513

What makes you think that this guy is any more reasonable than the rest?

[VoteProgressive]

35. I am extremely anti-NRA. Pro-Gun but 1000% anti-NRA. So no issue with me. nt

[Kennah]

38. Why The Murder Rate Is So High

In one of Joyce Lee Malcolm's books, I believe "Guns and Violence: The English Experience", she did some comparisons between English and American violence. In a nutshell, before there were restrictive gun laws in England and America, America was still more violent. There are a number of reasons why.

Another factor with violence in America, and I suspect there are many progressives and liberals who believe in more restrictive gun laws and who would agree with me, a lot of violent crime is the simple result of economics like lacking or fading social safety nets. The best crime deterrents out there are opportunity, education, training, and jobs. One could chase down any number of factors that contribute here: busting of unions, attacks on public education, slashing of welfare benefits, etc.

Violent crime remains very much on the decline in America, and some have observed that crime is cyclical. Since we are nearly the end of the Third Turning, or perhaps early in the Fourth Turning, crime tends to fall during that time.

[spin]

39. Add to your list the failed War on Drugs ...

History should have taught us that prohibition leads to criminal smuggling and consequent violent crime as gangs fight over turf. Just think how much money time and effort law enforcement spends in combating drug smuggling and drug gangs. Seriously, can a rational individual believe that winning this war is possible?

How many people are victims of crime by drug addicts? How many people are killed by gun fire in drive by shootings between gang members? How many members of drug gangs murder each other with firearms?

Our murder rate would be far lower if we just legalized many of the currently banned drugs and took the profit motive out of smuggling. Drug use is already rampant and could possibly decrease if many currently prohibited drugs were legal. Police involved in fighting drugs could instead spend time on the streets. We could free many people convicted of using drugs from prisons and have space for truly dangerous predators.

If nothing else, marijuana should be legalized. If more people used it rather than alcohol we might also see a drop in violent crime and murder.

Unfortunately, the drug war means power, money and job security for people in many government agencies. It has also been effectively used by the government to curtail freedoms citizens were granted in the Bill of Rights.

[Kennah]

40. Abso-Posi-lutely!

My brother lives in California, and he believes marijuana legalization will succeed within a couple of years. He noted that medical marijuana failed the first time or two it was on the ballot. Then it passed and the world didn't end. Now people are waking up on this point. I think he was predicting 40% for Prop 19, and it got 46%. Give it a year or two, and it will be legal in California.

He also pointed out there is one group who is very much opposed to marijuana legalization in California--growers of illegal marijuana! It will take a huge bite out of their profits.

I signed the initiative for legalization in Washington, but it didn't make the ballot in 2010. I give it two to three years and it will be on the ballot in Washington.