Discussion: State of the Gun

Go to the following website of a Pilot sister paper in Roanoke and listen to the 4 minute and 27 second tape (taken from a 13 minute 911 call) at http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/201127 Those without a gun and don’t believe in the value of self defense should seriously think about what they would do in such a situation. There were children in the house when this attack occurred. What would you do if such a thing occurred at your home?

What should be noted about this series is that there is information about “shooting sprees” but nothing is included about us using firearms 2.5 millions times a year for self defense; there is no information about specific examples about uses for self defense. (Kleck’s Point Blank: Guns and Violence in American, and Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control). Media claims to be unbiased, but this is one of the ways how they do it. They print factually truths but leave out other factual truths. They do this regarding a number of societal issues. This is one of the reasons people have stopped purchasing newspapers. We need balanced news sources. Unfortunately it is necessary to read a variety of sources to understand the complete picture.

Everyone needs to know: 1. police have no duty to enforce restraining orders (Castle Rock, Colo., v. Gonzales, 04-278 - Supreme Court October 2004), 2. police have no duty to respond to 911 calls and provide individuals protection (Warren Vs. District Of Columbia, D.C. App., Atlantic Reporter, 2nd Series, Volume 444, p 1 – 12), 3. “... that citizens can depend on police for effective protection, is simply untrue ... the idea that modern police are so effectively in controlling crime that they have rendered citizen self protection obsolete is widely at variance with a large body of evidence that police activities have, at best, only very modest effects on crime (Point Blank: Guns and Violence in American, Dr. Gary Kleck, 1991, p 121).

More guns for the criminals, more guns for the citizenry , more guns for the army, more guns for kids to play with, more guns for the nuts. A severe rescission. What a lovely mix.

Many of you are just going on and on without reseaching what your saying, Look up crime statistics since CCP/CHP/CWP have been allowed in each state. Every one of them will show you that crime has gone down. It will also so you that a very small amount if any in some cases are the ones commiting the crimes with weapons.

You don't want a discussion what you want is for everyone to agree with you. In no way are you going to change my mind nor do I expect to change yours. Sitting here bantering back and forth makes no common sense whatsoever, and it's a waste of time. None of you will have the final say on what direction gun contol bills will go in the future, and I don't need to justify anything to you or anyone else. My position on gun control will be stated with current elected officials and those running in up-coming election. You do as you please. BTW belittling others IS your forte. With some of you that's all you want to do. If I'm being attacked, you bet I will attack back, but I have a limit on such behavior then the discussion is over. Talk among yourselves!
I don't know why my "In Conclusion" comment was pulled. There was certainly nothing wrong with any part of it. What I would like to know is what warrrants a comment to be pulled. Maybe some day the VA Pilot will answer that question.

How many people here have looked up kennesaw Georgia?

Here it is in a nutshell. One of the LOWESTviolent crime rates, and murder rates in the nation!!!

How did it happen one might ask?

How about a law that all head of households are required to carry a gun, unless religiously against it, mental problems, or perhaps totally against guns.. Who wants to hold up a 7/11 when there are potentially half a dozen armed people waiting for you to turn your back..

Maybe the wild west wasnt so bad, at least people were polite! A lot more so that what I have been reading in these posts!

BTW, do I have a right to speak? Absolutely, I spent 10 years of my life in Submarine forces, willing to do what was necessary to protect these United States and the Constitution. That Constitution, and it's bill of rights, allows me to own and carry a GUN.

DonM, read the quotes I posted about 12 posts down, georges61555, like most of the other anti-gun folks, has tried more insults to make his point than facts.

I like your plan! I have no problem with a law like that.

As far as the "Depression can hit a man hard between 35 and.......", I would worry more about women going through menopause!!! :D

I think georges61555 has concluded his inputs, but I sure hope he/she is still reading them.

It was part of a TV program dealing with mental illness in America. As you know mental illness has been the topic of many aricles as well as discussions especially with the new bills being passed regarding it and the VA Tech shooting. Depression doesn't wait until 35 to 44 for sure, but often that is the time when many men first encounter it. Those are very vulnerable ages for many men that can lead to ongoing bouts of depression and thoughts of suicide also dramatically increase. Doing a google search you can find additional info and a breakdown by various age groups.
Since my last post "In Conclusion" was removed from the discussion, as stated, I will not continue the debate in this foram on gun contol. But will continue my concern about the lack of gun control and the danger's I see that come with it in other ways.

If I am reading this correctly, GeorgeS is not against gun ownership and carrying concealed. He is against openly carrying a firearm due to the stigma and phobias attached to firearms. Out of sight, out of mind type of thing?

All this would be alleviated if the state changes the law to read "It is unlawful to possess a firearm in an establishment whose primary purpose is to serve alcohol. In cases where a restaurant also has a bar, then it would be unlawful to possess a firearm in the bar area." This would eliminate the issue with only being allowed in the Olive Garden if you carry your gun in the open. You could further amend the law to state that it is unlawful to carry a firearm while consuming alcohol or with a BAC of .02 or higher. This eliminates the controversy over guns and alcohol.

George, not trying to be mean or anything, but just wondering if the depression theory is based on any facts? If so let me know. I'm a few years older than the age parameters given for men experiencing depression, but, still have had it before, like when I read your posts. Just kidding there. Hanging my head in shame, I request the source of information for your theory.

Every handgun I own is within reach of my kids, they know where they are and they are all loaded, fully loaded. Why have my kids never even thought about messing with my guns? Because my wife and myself are highly involved in our kids lives. We always ask if the have homework,need help with anything, we know where they are at all times, take them to and from ball practice, attend games, school functions....You ask what this has to do with the topic of guns? I own a pile of guns, all legal. My wife and I are good, involved parents who explain right from wrong. My kids know my guns are there for protection if the situation were to ever arise. We teach high morals and hold our kids accountable for their actions. Guns are not a problem for us.

For the very simple reason that you are not allowed to carry it concealed in a restaurant that serves alcohol. I would prefer not to carry it open but we are forced to if we have it on our person because that’s what the law states. Once again, we are trying to obey the law... hence law abiding citizens... translated as not the ones you need to be worried about.

It has been my experience that people who choose to carry much prefer not letting others know they have it if for no other reason than to avoid the controversy and possible naive interpretation of others.

"Depression can hit a man hard between 35 and......."

So now you are a leading sociologist and/or psychologist?

Federal database. No thank you. What would be registered? All firearms? Handguns only? Shotguns and rifles as well? Keeping federal lists of gun owners would be a travesty for several reasons.

Why do you not respond to my question or anyones elses regarding the ridiculously low rate of handgun offenses committed by those who legally carry openly or concealed?

“The 2nd amendment interpretation seems to have taken on an individual interpretation.” The 2nd Amendment is in the Bill of Rights, which spells out the rights citizens if the United States enjoy. The only reason that many supporters of the Constitution agreed to do so was because of the inclusion of the Bill of Rights, designed specifically to enumerate those inalienable rights the government could not take away. What is the purpose of the database you propose? Why should the government maintain a list of people who have the audacity to exercise their rights? Look at the word you use – permit. As in, the government has permitted you the right to own a firearm. You don’t get your rights from the government and the Constitution prevents the government from denying them to you. More harm has been caused and more lives lost because of words and religion than guns, but I don't see you advocating getting permit from the government or registration for either of those.

georges61555, I have answered all of your questions, but sadly, several of my post seem to drop off the forum or take several hours to be OK'd by the staff.

There is no way the federal government should have a database of who said what, who goes to what church or who owns a firearm. The founding father knew history and knew what happens when a government takes away these rights. What happens in other countries, such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq if you do not follow the state religion? What happens in these countries if you say negative things about the leaders?

Kaine did what he thought was right and what is perfectly legal to do, but he did go against the will of the majority so there is no way this is over.

The 2nd amendment interpretation seems to have taken on an individual interpretation. Why did I ask pappy62, "so you don't have an answer"? Because 3 seperate time he stated, "so you don't have a plan", and it was his turn to answer my question instead of trying to put me on the spot. Well, I now have a suggestion, plan if you will. EVERY gun purchased should require a permit and that permit should be entered into a fegeral government database. Afterall, since guns aren't illegal, then a permit should be no problem to the person purchasing one. I don't know if ALL permits have to be renewed, but if they don't they absolutely should be. Life changes alone could alter that person's right to purchase a gun. Depression alone CAN hit hard the man between 35 and 44 years old although most men don't want to admit it. Nothing I've said above takes away anyone's right to own a gun, but I will continue to say the 2nd amendment should not overlook common sense. You don't have to agree with me, but I'm entitled to my interpretation.

Comparing driving and carrying firearms is a fallacious comparison typically trotted out by antigun folk. The problem is that the right to drive isn’t enshrined in the Constitution but the right to bear arms is. “What is the need to openly wear a gun to a restaurant?” Since when does any citizen have to justify exercising a Constitutional right? Should people have to explain why they want to go to church? Come up with a good reason why their home shouldn’t be searched without a warrant? Explain why, oh, I don’t know, they should be allowed to participate in an online discussion? You want licensing and a national database. Let me ask you this: How would you feel about having to register to exercise your right to free speech? Get a permit from the federal government to attend your church? Obtain a license before being awarded a speedy and public trial? Too many people want the 1st Amendment to be absolute but want to impose restrictions on the 2nd.