King to introduce gun-restriction legislation in response to Tucson shooting

[james&olya 1,121]

"If you outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns".

Along the same lines as "Locks only keep honest people out."

Do you think people are more likely to not do something because it's illegal, or because they think it's morally wrong? If they don't care if it's morally wrong, are they likely to care if it's illegal?

So are you one of those that think the more citizens armed the better? The good guys can win the ensuing gun battles, just like those (historically accurate??) westerns!

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

So are you one of those that think the more citizens armed the better? The good guys can win the ensuing gun battles, just like those (historically accurate??) westerns!

Well lets say at the recent shooting you had 30 armed citizens.... I would say there is a 50% they would have killed the guy within seconds.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

and there would be a 50% chance they'd all start shooting each other due to the confusion.......and then the police would shoot them.

There was a report that two armed individuals were in the area. Apparently the first guy saw the other guy and tackled him, it was pretty lucky he didn't shoot him instead.

[Sgt. McGee 27]

So are you one of those that think the more citizens armed the better? The good guys can win the ensuing gun battles, just like those (historically accurate??) westerns!

No.

I'm just one of those that thinks it's ridiculous to think that someone who's going to use a gun to kill someone cares if there's a law that says that they shouldn't do that.

[james&olya 1,121]

No.

I'm just one of those that thinks it's ridiculous to think that someone who's going to use a gun to kill someone cares if there's a law that says that they shouldn't do that.

Theoretically, it would not depend on whether the homicidally inclined cared about laws, it would depend on whether people in the gun selling business did. But the idea that you could accomplish much now with laws regulating gun sales doesn't make a lot of sense. The sheer number of guns already in circulation eliminates that option as a practical approach to reducing gun violence.

[^_^ 5,021]

... it's ridiculous to think that someone who's going to use a gun to kill someone cares if there's a law that says that they shouldn't do that.

QFT

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

So are you one of those that think the more citizens armed the better? The good guys can win the ensuing gun battles, just like those (historically accurate??) westerns!

Yes, I believe the more guns the better. Unlike the westerns, such a condition elimnates gun battles, They do not occur at all. Good guys "win" by elimnating them ever happening. Ever hear of a massacre at a gun show?

The historically inaccurate thing about westerns is that except for some certain places affected by localized problems, there really was very little violence at all.

James, quiet, peaceful Vermont...home of Ben & Jerry's and Maple syrup, snowboards and cheese and chocolate. Home of the US's only Socialist Senator, gay marriage, covered bridges, virtually non-existent marijuana laws...is an armed camp. Anyone over age 18 can carry a concealed handgun and MANY MANY do!

BRATTLEBORO -- The homicide rate in Vermont hit its lowest point in two decades after only four documented cases in 2009

It has been more than 4 years since a random homicide occurred here and that killing was not with a gun. Our crime rate is miniscule, yet everyone can carry a gun...everyone.

Every state that has implemented "shall issue" concealed carry, so far 39 states (plus 3 that allow concealed carry without a permit like Vermont) has had a decrease in crime. It isn't even an issue that can be argued anymore. It is not without reason that so many states implemented and enjoyed the benefits of law abiding citizens carrying concealed handguns from 1986 until 2010. In nearly all those states...including Michigan...the liberals decried the laws, predicting "blood running in the streets" wild high noon shootouts, etc. It never happened. As state after state passed the laws and state after state reported reductions in crime...I am a bit surprised anyone even puts forth the argument anymore. Iowa was the most recent state to pass "shall issue" this past year and it was done with barely any protest. It is an empty argument anymore. 2 states have added "constitutional carry" in addition to Vermont (which always had it) and Wisconsin will pass "shall issue" this year and their new Governor says he will sign it. Wisconsin has passed "shall issue" twice before but Governor Doyle vetoed it and they did not have enough votes to override. Doyle is gone.

Yes, I firmly believe that guns in the hands of law abiding citizens deters crime. It is simply a tried and proven fact. Vermont is by far the safest place in the country, the continent and the hemisphere. I do my part by keeping a .45 at hand at all times.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Theoretically, it would not depend on whether the homicidally inclined cared about laws, it would depend on whether people in the gun selling business did. But the idea that you could accomplish much now with laws regulating gun sales doesn't make a lot of sense. The sheer number of guns already in circulation eliminates that option as a practical approach to reducing gun violence.

True again.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Well lets say at the recent shooting you had 30 armed citizens.... I would say there is a 50% they would have killed the guy within seconds.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

and there would be a 50% chance they'd all start shooting each other due to the confusion.......and then the police would shoot them.

There was a report that two armed individuals were in the area. Apparently the first guy saw the other guy and tackled him, it was pretty lucky he didn't shoot him instead.

The problem was that since it was a political rally the criminal could be relatively certain there WERE no other guns there...security, you know. In order to protect the Congressowman there would be lots of security present and people are discouraged from carrying guns, even though Arizona allows them to. The gunman was right. He chose his venue correctly. The security people who were armed are trained NOT to shoot in a crowd. Just dumb@ss ol' armed citizens may do something stupid...like shoot the gunman!

It is a flawed concept to think that an armed citizenry "wins" by out-shooting the criminals. Never happens. They "win" by discouraging the criminals. Risk/benefit. Every state that has had a reduction in crime did not do it by shooting all the criminals, the crime just went down. Shootouts did not go up.

It seems after 42 states have shown us this template over and over for the past 24 years, it would start to sink in.

I say that had this been an "unregulated" crowd anywhere else in AZ this guy would never do this. Period.