The no-guns-allowed sign already came down at Boca Raton City Hall, and firearm bans at other public buildings, parks and beaches across South Florida are soon to go.
They're always talking about the rights of gun owners, but what about the rights of non gun owners? Doesn't allowing guns in places like parks and government buildings interfere with the non gun owners' ability to safely and securely use those places? Wouldn't allowing guns in those former no-gun zones make it more likely that people will be shot by a lawfully licensed CCW guy than by a criminal?
It doesn't take rocket science to see that more mass shootings are done by lawful gun owners gone berserk than by criminals. Giving these guys free reign is a mistake. The influence of the NRA backed by its sheep-like members is responsible for lowering the quality of life in South Florida, and elsewhere.
This is further reason why Florida rightly wears the crown.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
"They're always talking about the rights of gun owners, but what about the rights of non gun owners?"
ReplyDeleteNon gun owners have the right to not carry a gun. Why is that even a question?
"It doesn't take rocket science to see that more mass shootings are done by lawful gun owners gone berserk than by criminals."
Do you have a cite for that? I didn't think so--no rocket science need applied to suppositions.
I would like the right to live in a civilized society where my fellow human beings are not armed at all times in anticipation of some act of necessary violence.
ReplyDeleteTHAT is antithetical to peaceful living; we are no longer a frontier civilization. On those few areas that ARE still a frontier I have no problem with the practical accompaniment of fire arms.
But your gun owners who are carrying just because they 'want to', and not because they have a reason, say.......bank guard, courier for valuable items, etc.
That implies a society of vigilantes instead of a society with rule of law. It is not what was ever intended, and it shouldn't be the predominant practice now either.
I would certainly at the very least, amend MikeB's statement to read that mass shootings always occur with guns which began as legal guns, guns which someone either then sold illegally, or where the lawful gun owner did not adequately secure them, often another family member.
As to mass shootings, as a prima facie example.....the phrase going postal refers to civil servants who flip out, and shoot multiple people..........civil servants who appear to have acquired their weapons legitimately.
Virginia Tech - legally purchased gun, Jared Loughner - legally purchased gun. Norway's Breivik - legally purchased weapons.
Here is an impressive list of the worst:http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011/jul/22/eu-mass-shootings-glance/
and another:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,512480,00.html
and one more:
http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2009/04/a_glance_at_us_mass_shootings.html
and lastly, an embarrassment if you look at who compiled this list of mass shootings, because it provides some insight into how the rest of the world views our particular insanity regarding guns:
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-01/09/c_13682614.htm
YOU track down how each of these people got their guns, and then show me how many of these mass shootings were stopped by lawful concealed carry rather than law enforcement or unarmed civilians.
I did a quick and dirty google search for mass shootings in 2011;
Michigan, July 2011, dangerously mentally ill man, used a LEGALLy purchased stolen 40 cal. handgun;
and here is the link to mass shootings and expanded capacity magazines:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-sugarmann/10-us-mass-shootings-invo_b_808603.html#s222832&title=Hartford_Distributors
(Hope you don't mind me 'looking up' more stuff again, MikeB.)
Bottom line, countries which make guns LESS available have FEWER of these incidents, NOT countries which have people armed to the teeth at all times.
"I would like the right to live in a civilized society where my fellow human beings are not armed at all times in anticipation of some act of necessary violence."
ReplyDeleteSorry there is no country that can guarantee you that right. Sure countries can restrict weapons to some extent, but people throughout history have used violence and weapons (from pointed sticks and rocks to WMDs) to get what they want from whom they want.
"I would like the right to live in a civilized society where my fellow human beings are not armed at all times in anticipation of some act of necessary violence."
ReplyDeleteMe too. Please let me know where I can get a ride on a rainbow farting unicorn to Fantasyland. This is a sick and violent society and wishing it were different is not going to help. I wish it weren't so as well.
"But your gun owners who are carrying just because they 'want to', and not because they have a reason, say.......bank guard, courier for valuable items, etc.
I have three valuable items I carry with me a lot. They are 8, 6 and 3 years old and anytime they get scared of anything they yell for "Daddy". I intend to protect them no matter what and being unarmed with the number of criminals and deviants running around is not going to help them.
"and lastly, an embarrassment if you look at who compiled this list of mass shootings, because it provides some insight into how the rest of the world views our particular insanity regarding guns"
First of all, I don't think I have made it a secret that I could care less what the rest of the world thinks of us. Secondly, if I did care what anyone at all in the world thought of us, it sure wouldn't be filthy commies.
They also left off one:
1989, Bejing. Filthy commies murdered civilians by the truckload. The numbers range from the official Chinese number of 241, to 2,600 estimated by the Red Cross and 3,000 reported by Soviet intelligence.
I'm not expecting rainbows and unicorns FWM or Jim.
ReplyDeleteBut other countries DO have less gun violence, without crowds of armed citizens.
CIVILIZED countries, countries who when their citizens come here, think we are crazy, and a little bit dangerous. Or sometimes a lot dangerous.
And they are correct.
Are these the same "civilized" countries that slaughtered each other by the millions last century and then called on the U.S. to bail them out whenever they couldn't handle it?
ReplyDeleteTwice England and France cried "help us Obi-won-America, you're our only hope."
Yeah, thought so. Europe is so "civilized".
FWM, Part of the reason there are so many deviants running around with guns is because it's too easy for guys like to you buy guns. They start out with you and flow into the criminal world. This increases your need to be armed and your desire for lax gun laws, thereby exacerbating the problem in a never-ending cycle of death.
ReplyDeleteAs a gun owner concerned about his family, you should be on our side of this debate.
"As a gun owner concerned about his family, you should be on our side of this debate."
ReplyDeleteAs long as your side of the debate focuses on banning guns that have certain cosmetic features and boxes with springs in them as a solution, I'll have no part of it. It is what you do instead of something useful.
"But other countries DO have less gun violence, without crowds of armed citizens."
ReplyDeleteAhh but that is not what you wanted to be free from. You said
"I would like the right to live in a civilized society where my fellow human beings are not armed at all times in anticipation of some act of necessary violence."
Now surely you would agree that people can be armed with something besides a gun right? Or you just don't care if people are stabbed or beaten? No big deal if the violence is not gun based? Riot away England - just don't shoot anyone?
Dim Jim, the violence done by someone close enough to use a gun or a club of some kind puts the user at greater risk than a firearm does.
ReplyDeleteI think those instances can be easily dealth with by the police in normal occurrence; the UK is not more violent than the US, and is arguably less so, in all categories. All without people strapping on guns to various parts of their anatomy.
That represents criminals being dealt with, successfully, by law enforcement not vigilante citizens.
Civilized. Perhaps you are simply fundamentally unfamiliar with the concept?
"I think those instances can be easily dealth with by the police in normal occurrence."
ReplyDeleteExcept that each of us are not carrying around a police office with us. Further since criminals tend not to launch their attacks when cop is in the vicinity of the intended victim, there is usually not a police officer around to immediately deal with the violence as you would have so in your Utopian society.
That is why police officers use their chalk and tape far more than they use their firearms. I am afraid in the real world, police are the 2nd responders--the victim is the first responder.
FWM said, "It is what you do instead of something useful.".
ReplyDeleteNot me, man. You know I'm not into that magazine business and the cosmetic features either.
"Not me, man. You know I'm not into that magazine business and the cosmetic features either."
ReplyDeleteI kind of met "you" as in anti gun loons in general rather than you personally. However, I suspect you would support the latest McCarthy ban had it a chance of going anywhere but the trash can. Not because you would think it would actually do any good but because it is a gun control bill of some sort and you need a win somewhere.
They also left off one:
ReplyDelete1989, Bejing. Filthy commies murdered civilians by the truckload. The numbers range from the official Chinese number of 241, to 2,600 estimated by the Red Cross and 3,000 reported by Soviet intelligence.
August 12, 2011 11:33 PM
That was, if I'm not mistaken, the Chinese PLA that massacered their own people. While not condoning such cowardly acts I'm gonna have to say that, considering the Mao and post-Mao regimes in China's dealings with armed/unarmed dissidents and demonstrators, the likelihood of many thousands more dying if they crowd was armed is high.
FWM, You're right. I wouldn't vote against it, but I agree with you it's fairly uselsess. On the other hand, if it saves one life, it's gotta be good. And the chances of a life being saved with the 17th round is pretty low, so I guess I gotta support it after all. Thanks, you talked me into it.
ReplyDelete