Seattle Area Shooting
A couple of weeks ago I pointed out the flaw in the logic gun nuts use to justify them carrying guns everywhere they go or that more guns make us safer by pointing out that a gunmen specifically targeted the Fort Hood military base. Yet again, a gunmen has specifically targeted a place that is known to be frequented by armed police officers and shot 4 armed police officers dead.
Can we finally put to rest the ridiculous notion that if you are carrying a gun, or if you own a gun, you are automatically safer because no one in their right mind would attack someone who is armed? First off, by owning a gun you are 3 times more likely to be killed by a gun. It's sort of like the gun toting soccer mom syndrome.
Again, I am not saying the 2nd Amendment should be repealed; I own a gun. But time and time again we see that the countries, cities, etc. that have the most guns, have the most gun deaths. And again, I am not talking about gun control, I am talking about the amount and availability of guns in general. More guns do not make you safer; owning a gun does not make you safe nor necessarily protect you from violence.
The silver lining is that it looks like Maurice Clemmons is going to be Mike Huckabee's Willie Horton since Huckabee pardoned this guy as Governor of Arkansas.
11 comments:
I halfway agree. I don't think that "being armed no one will attack you" i just think it is far less likely that a gunman will attack a place known to have weapons around than one that is gun free. Yes, this time cops were killed. But it was ONLY officers attacked, shot from behind, and no one else was targeted. This kind of attack is far in the minority. I live in the Northwest, and we have had about 15-20 shootings in the last month and a half, just in the area around Portland. The cop killing was just one in the northwest, while how many others are in gun free zones? This is an aberration, not the rule.
I just need to point out the irony in the gun-toting soccer mom story:
"Meleanie Hain was thrust into the national spotlight when she took a gun, in plain view and holstered on her hip, to a soccer game Sept. 11, 2008, at Optimist Park in Lebanon."
On September 11th last year, surely fearing the worst kind of terrorist attack at her kid's soccer game, she came toting her holstered weapon at... Optimist Park.
Optimist park?? What a place to be carrying a gun. Again, besides inner-city kids on swing sets, the people who carry guns are usually the people who get shot.
James:
What exactly is a gun free zone anyway? The only place I have actually seen a sign that said no guns allowed was in the post office. But I would think a lot of places would have a no gun policy. So to say people specifically target those areas is a leap. The columbine kids didn't target Columbine because it was a gun free zone, they targeted it because thats where the people they hated were. The Dekalb, IL college shooter and VT shooter didn't target random colleges that they knew to be gun free zones, they targeted the places and the people they knew to make a statement. Like Hannibal Lector said, they must first covet.
For people with a death wish or on a suicide mission, I doubt they think about or even care if the place they are targeting is a "gun free zone". If you are going to shoot yourself in the end anyway, what would it matter if the other people had guns or not, the results are the same.
But places that have obviously armed people are far in the minority of places attacked, Toad. This example is a sad exception to the rule that having trained, armed people in a building is usually a deterrant to a shooter walking in and successfully killing a bunch of people. I don't think it makes you automatically safer, but it is a deterrant.
You mean like banks?? Wait, no, they usually do have an armed guard.
actually, most banks don't. most bank robberies happen at unarmed branches.
Most?? Really? And there are statistics on that?
I work in banking, Toad. But even in those cases that have armed guards and are robbed, how many of those are shooting rampages? It is still a minority to have a shooting at a place where there are armed people. Most of them still happen at places that have little to no armed people.
If you don't like guns, don't own one. It's that simple.
"Optimist park?? What a place to be carrying a gun. Again, besides inner-city kids on swing sets, the people who carry guns are usually the people who get shot."
Can you document this? That places for example that get a lot more people carrying (concealed carry) have a lot more shooting?
Oh, you mean like if you don't like abortions don't have one...or if you don't like gay marriage don't marry someone of the same gender??? I like how the right is all about everyone minding their own business when it comes to their rights but wants to get into everyone elses business when it comes to shit they don't like.
Here is the order ranking of states regarding violent crime according to the US Census:
1. South Carolina (Right To Carry)
2. Tennessee (Right To Carry)
3. Nevada (Right To Carry)
4. Florida (Right To Carry) (has issued most permits in country)
5. Louisiana (Right To Carry)
6. Alaska (No Permit Required)
7. Delaware (Right Restricted/limited Issue)
8. Maryland (Right Restricted/limited Issue)
9. New Mexico (Right To Carry)
10. Michigan (Right To Carry)
Murder Rate Ranking 2006, all right to carry states unless noted otherwise:
1. Louisiana 12.4
2.Maryland 12.4 (Right Restricted/limited Issue)
3.Nevada 9.0
4. South Carolina 8.3
5. Alabama 8.3
6.Mississippi 7.7 (Discretionary-Reasonable Issue)
7.Arizona 7.5
8. Arkansas 7.3
9. Tennessee 6.8
10.Georgia 6.4
You will notice some states that aren't on those lists:
Wisconsin, Illinois, California, New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Hawaii, Massachusetts which all either don't issue permits for concealed carry or are very restricted, limited issuers of permits according to the NRA.
We also know that probably besides Alaska, the rate of gun ownership is much higher in the south than it is in the North East for instance and we also know that the south/AKA bible belt has the highest crime and murder rate of any other region in the country. We also know that in places like Detroit, where guns outnumber people, they have very high gun death/murder rates.
We can also look at places like Colombia, South Africa, Mexico, Iraq, Algeria, Russia, The Congo, etc and know that in the countries that have the most guns, they all end up having the highest murder rates. Countries like Japan, Sweden, UK, etc. all have low gun ownership rates and thus much lower murder / gun death rates than places like the US or Russia.
And no, I am not talking gun control, I am talking guns.
And gun nuts always try to point to Australia that somehow bolsters their arguments that gun bans or buy backs create more crime and they pick one statistic like crime against the elderly to try to make their case and leave out 1000s of other facts such as how Australia never had a blanket right to own guns and that after the buy back the gun crime rate decreased.
Here's a look at robbery with a firearm rates in Australia before and after the buy back program:
1995 - 27.8%
1996 - 25.3%
1997 - 24.1% (Gun buy back program)
1998 - 17.6%
1999 - 15.2%
2000 - 14.0%
Again, this isn't necessarily a 100% cause and effect relationship here just like the elderly home invasion rate or even the murder rates but you said you wanted figures and stats showing the difference in crime between more guns and fewer guns and here they are.
Other studies have shown that your family is 2.7 times more likely to be killed by a gun if you keep a gun in the house. Although this study has been attacked by gun nuts, no other study exists showing the opposite to be true.
If you need any other issues cleared up feel free to ask as I am always glad to help. I know you don't always get the truth from Rush Limbaugh and Faux News but that's why I am here.
Thanks foor a great read
Post a Comment