NationStates Jolt Archive

Fireman, gunman dead in Wendy's shooting

By BRIAN SKOLOFF, Associated Press Writer 6 minutes ago

A gunman in a jacket, tie and baseball cap wordlessly opened fire inside a Wendy's during the lunchtime rush Monday, killing a paramedic who had gone back to fetch the right toy to go with his child's meal and wounding five others. The 60-year-old shooter then committed suicide.

"This was not a robbery. He didn't demand anything," said Paul Miller, a Palm Beach County sheriff's spokesman. "Looks like this was just another random shooting like we've seen around the United States."

The 42-year-old victim, Palm Beach County Fire-Rescue Lt. Rafael Vazquez, who was not in uniform, had met his wife and child at the restaurant during a break in training down the street, Deputy Fire-Rescue Chief Steve Delai said. The family had gotten their food and walked out, but Vazquez returned because the wrong free toy had been included in the kids' meal, detectives said.

Vazquez's wife, a law enforcement officer in nearby Palm Springs, and child were in the parking lot when he was shot in the back as he stood at the counter.

"Our officer probably didn't even see him," Delai said of the gunman, Alburn Edward Blake.

Miller said Blake, a handyman and maintenance worker, had no relation to anyone at the restaurant and had never worked for Wendy's, and authorities had not found any notes.

"We don't know why he picked this location to do this horrible deed," he said.

Vazquez had been promoted in January and was attending a course called "Strategy and Tactics" before taking his lunch break. Delai said the course teaches officers how to "manage large-scale incidents like we had today."

The mayhem unfolded just after noon during the lunch hour rush at the eatery on a major suburban road lined with strip malls, car dealerships and fast food restaurants, about five miles from downtown West Palm Beach. A billboard advertising an upcoming gun show stands just behind the Wendy's.

Blake entered the restaurant and went to a restroom before coming out brandishing a 9 mm handgun, Miller said. About 10 to 15 people were in the restaurant at the time, he said.

Ashley Milton, 28, said she had just opened the door to get lunch when she heard the "pop pop" of gunfire and saw people running.

"I really didn't think that's what it was. I thought this can't be happening," she said. "You see your life flash before your eyes."

Josh Maynard, 30, said he and his 20-year-old brother Jerry hit the floor when Blake opened fire. Jerry Maynard said the shooter held his gun sideways and said nothing.

Three of the survivors were hospitalized and stable, Miller said. They included a 43-year-old man, a 16-year-old girl, and a 65-year-old man and his 62-year-old wife. Two others had minor injuries, including one person who was injured while running away.

"I just saw a lady with a little boy in her arms come running out screaming, 'Somebody's shooting!'" said Sandra Jackson, who had been getting gas across the street. The woman said her husband was still inside, said Jackson, 43, of Palm Springs.

When the shooting stopped, the Maynard brothers ran out of the restaurant. Josh Maynard's blue jeans were torn and his brown leather boots were sliced, damage he said was caused by a bullet that grazed him as he lay on the floor.

"It felt like somebody kicked me in the foot," he said.

One customer kicked the pistol away from the gunman after he shot himself, then started first aid on the wounded, Miller said.

Blake owned a maintenance company until 2003, according to public records. A 1996 story in The Palm Beach Post reported that he accidentally ran over an 18-month-old girl with his van, seriously injuring her. The story said he had a young daughter who would now be a teenager.

Neighbors described Blake as a quiet man who kept to himself. Michele Grippe watched police go into Blake's apartment after the shooting to search it.

"The only thing they took out of the house was a bag of pills," Grippe said. "Right now, I'm really, really shocked. ... I'm here with my kids, and it's really scary to think about that. Sometimes we'll keep our door open. My kids play outside."

Bob Bertini, a Wendy's Inc. spokesman based in Dublin, Ohio, called the shooting "a senseless tragedy."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080304/ap_on_re_us/wendy_s_shooting&printer=1
Let me see here, Florida is indeed a shall issue state, it was one of the first IIRC. It has very liberal gun laws. It has the castle law (Stand your ground), and Wendy's is not a gun free zone so...

Why didn't one of them CCWs show up and shoot him? Isn't that the argument from our resident gun nuts after every single shooting? That if ONLY CCWs were allowed? If ONLY they could stand their ground? If ONLY it wasn't a gun free zone?

What's the answer to this one?

One customer kicked the pistol away from the gunman after he shot himself, then started first aid on the wounded, Miller said.
That's some presence of mind. I'd like to think I'd collect myself that quickly but that really might not be the case. I might be still under the tables wondering if it's over.

This sucks. It's unfortunate.

Let me see here, Florida is indeed a shall issue state, it was one of the first IIRC. It has very liberal gun laws. It has the castle law (Stand your ground), and Wendy's is not a gun free zone so...

Why didn't one of them CCWs show up and shoot him? Isn't that the argument from our resident gun nuts after every single shooting? That if ONLY CCWs were allowed? If ONLY they could stand their ground? If ONLY it wasn't a gun free zone?

What's the answer to this one?

Because CCW's carriers aren't Super Heros, they can't be at every single shooting that happens? Just throwing it out there.

Because CCW's carriers aren't Super Heros, they can't be at every single shooting that happens? Just throwing it out there.

But the argument that's put forward is:

1) They all have guns.
2) Therefore, we need guns to protect ourselves.

In this case, number 1 has clearly worked in force, but number 2 is surely lacking.

If your defence is based on shooting back at people who have the guns, there will always be times when you're "not there". Or they shoot you first. A far better defence, therefore, is to eliminate number 1 itself.

Isn't it wonderfull how every unhinged idiot in the US can just go out to buy a gun and shoot up some random bystanders...

Isn't it wonderfull that ccw's prevent all these shootings...

Isn't it wonderfull how gun ownership makes the world a safer place for innocent bystanders...

:(

But the argument that's put forward is:

1) They all have guns.
2) Therefore, we need guns to protect ourselves.

In this case, number 1 has clearly worked in force, but number 2 is surely lacking.

If your defence is based on shooting back at people who have the guns, there will always be times when you're "not there". Or they shoot you first. A far better defence, therefore, is to eliminate number 1 itself.

However in elimination of 1, all you've really done is put more guns on the black market for non-law abiding citizens to buy. Great job, you just disarmed the law abiding public while giving criminals all the guns.

However in elimination of 1, all you've really done is put more guns on the black market for non-law abiding citizens to buy. Great job, you just disarmed the law abiding public while giving criminals all the guns.

But you're yet to make the point as to why arming the 'law abiding public' is a good thing.

Because CCW's carriers aren't Super Heros, they can't be at every single shooting that happens? Just throwing it out there.
That's not the argument that you made about the NIU shooting, Wilgrove.

But you're yet to make the point as to why arming the 'law abiding public' is a good thing.

The idea is that *if* someone who has a CCW permit just happens to be around, they can do something about it. We're not touting that CCWs are the be-all, end-all solution to crime, spree shootings, and your dog peeing on the rug. If someone with a CCW had been there, there's a good chance s/he could have taken out the shooter and helped a few of those people. In this case, that didn't happen, because there was no CCW. How is this a case against them? Simply that this time it didn't work ideally?

The idea is that *if* someone who has a CCW permit just happens to be around, they can do something about it. We're not touting that CCWs are the be-all, end-all solution to crime, spree shootings, and your dog peeing on the rug. If someone with a CCW had been there, there's a good chance s/he could have taken out the shooter and helped a few of those people. In this case, that didn't happen, because there was no CCW. How is this a case against them? Simply that this time it didn't work ideally?

So Wilgrove is saying that it's because CCW carriers aren't super heroes, so they couldn't be at this shooting. Now you're saying that they are super heroes, and, had they been there, he would have 'taken out the shooter', 'helped the people', and presumably had enough time left over for a quick cup of tea and a kiss with the leading lady before heading off for the next assignment.

Come on now, let's have some realism. Not all gun carrying people are going to save the day. So, they can't be there all the time, and they can't all save the day when they are; how many people are they going to help, then? I'd say we're down to a minority of cases, even on your terms.

So Wilgrove is saying that it's because CCW carriers aren't super heroes, so they couldn't be at this shooting. Now you're saying that they are super heroes, and, had they been there, he would have 'taken out the shooter', 'helped the people', and presumably had enough time left over for a quick cup of tea and a kiss with the leading lady before heading off for the next assignment.

What I'm saying is that on the off chance someone is carrying a weapon at the scene of a crime, chances are that the person will use it (people don't go get these licences on a whim). Not once did I say that a CCW will pop out of nowhere to save the day, and the event in the OP is a perfect example of that. Strawman anyone?

Come on now, let's have some realism. Not all gun carrying people are going to save the day. So, they can't be there all the time, and they can't all save the day when they are; how many people are they going to help, then? I'd say we're down to a minority of cases, even on your terms.

Alright, I'll be generous and accept your 'minority of cases'. What reason do we have to disallow CCW?

Do you know, in Australia we once had a really bad massacre, some nut went to a tourist location with an automatic rifle and mowed down everyone, children and all, in fact it happened not far away from where I live, I can damn well tell you it effected me seeing the images on that day. After that in our country we vowed that it would never happen again, automatic weapons were banned, and it never has. Problem solved.

The idea is that *if* someone who has a CCW permit just happens to be around, they can do something about it.
They could, but would they?
We're not touting that CCWs are the be-all, end-all solution to crime, spree shootings, and your dog peeing on the rug. If someone with a CCW had been there, there's a good chance s/he could have taken out the shooter and helped a few of those people.
Wasn't there someone with a CCW there? Maybe there was and they just didn't do anything. Having a CCW doesn't suddenly make you a fearless defender of the unarmed. It doesn't make you able to shrug off bullets like water off a duck's back.
In this case, that didn't happen, because there was no CCW. How is this a case against them? Simply that this time it didn't work ideally?

As I say, there may well have been someone with a CCW there. Heck, there was an actual police officer in the parking lot. I'm just saying that shooting + CCW =/= dead shooter and saved-would-be-victims.

Wasn't there someone with a CCW there? Maybe there was and they just didn't do anything. Having a CCW doesn't suddenly make you a fearless defender of the unarmed. It doesn't make you able to shrug off bullets like water off a duck's back.

As I say, there may well have been someone with a CCW there. Heck, there was an actual police officer in the parking lot. I'm just saying that shooting + CCW =/= dead shooter and saved-would-be-victims.

I used the words 'if', 'could have' and 'quite likely' in my post for a reason. A firearm *doesn't* make a person a superhero, and I do hope that's not the impression I'm giving. All it does is offer a chance to do something. Sometimes, like you say, a person doesn't take that opportunity. Fine. Nothing lost. Other times, the person might pull out their firearm and shoot back. A CCW *can* do good, *if* it's at the scene, and *if* it's used. Certainly not always, and maybe not even usually. Is this a reason not to allow CCWs?

Isn't it wonderfull how every unhinged idiot in the US can just go out to buy a gun and shoot up some random bystanders...
Except every unhinged idiot can't... In many, many states they can't.

This is a perfect example of why the US government needs to set minimum standards when it comes to the purchase and permitting of handgun owners. Florida is one of the states that hasn't entirely closed the background check loopholes when it comes to purchasing handguns from private individuals/collectors. That's a problem. But to catagorically make that statement is wrong. Many states do require permitting or at least a background check, regardless of where the purchase takes place.


Isn't it wonderfull that ccw's prevent all these shootings...
So now it's the fault of the CCW? Do we know that the killer had a CCW? Because I didn't read that in the article. I have a CCW, I don't carry my gun around. In fact, I only carry it when I'm going to the shooting range. I really don't see how one has anything to do with the other.

Isn't it wonderfull how gun ownership makes the world a safer place for innocent bystanders...

:(

So because no one in the restaurant was either carrying a gun or was in the state of mind to kill another human being, that's the fault of legal gun ownership? Why does my desire to obtain a CCW mean I have a desire to kill someone, even if they need killing?

.
Except every unhinged idiot can't... In many, many states they can't.

This is a perfect example of why the US government needs to set minimum standards when it comes to the purchase and permitting of handgun owners. Florida is one of the states that hasn't entirely closed the background check loopholes when it comes to purchasing handguns from private individuals/collectors. That's a problem. But to catagorically make that statement is wrong. Many states do require permitting or at least a background check, regardless of where the purchase takes place.

Because everyone who's unhinged is registered as such ?



So now it's the fault of the CCW? Do we know that the killer had a CCW? Because I didn't read that in the article. I have a CCW, I don't carry my gun around. In fact, I only carry it when I'm going to the shooting range. I really don't see how one has anything to do with the other.

This was me responding to several posters insistence that ccw's prevent these shooting sprees


.
So because no one in the restaurant was either carrying a gun or was in the state of mind to kill another human being, that's the fault of legal gun ownership? Why does my desire to obtain a CCW mean I have a desire to kill someone, even if they need killing?

I'll bet that the shooter was in legal possesion of the gun he used at the wendy's, thats why it sthe fault of legal gun ownership.

Because everyone who's unhinged is registered as such ?
Well no, but mental illness, criminal history and such will prevent you from legally obtaining a weapon in many states. I think those actually disqualify you on a federal level. I would have to double check that, however.




This was me responding to several posters insistence that ccw's prevent these shooting sprees

Okay, fair enough. I think from my post you can tell how I read that.


I'll bet that the shooter was in legal possesion of the gun he used at the wendy's, thats why it sthe fault of legal gun ownership.
That's an assumption, firstly. Only 2% of crimes (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9502EED7153DF933A15750C0A962958260) are committed with legally purchased weapons. And if there were sensible restrictions enacted on a federal level, I'm willing to bet that number could be reduced even further. Because of the percentage of illegal guns used in crimes, doesn't it make more sense to pass legistaltion targeting the illegal guns and illegal gun ownership first? Let's learn from what happened in Washington DC duing their handgun ban (http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp):
Washington D.C. enacted a virtual ban on handguns in 1976. Between 1976 and 1991, Washington D.C.'s homicide rate rose 200%, while the U.S. rate rose 12%.

CCW is only a problem for lethal weapons. In the given example, the problem is not concealed carry but guns (or people with guns, if you so prefer). There is an argument in favour of permitting CCW for non-lethal defensive armaments and banning all lethal ones, even if no effective examples of non-lethal ones currently exist, because this will artificially accelerate development of defensive armaments other than offensive firearms.

The idea is that *if* someone who has a CCW permit just happens to be around, they can do something about it. We're not touting that CCWs are the be-all, end-all solution to crime, spree shootings, and your dog peeing on the rug. If someone with a CCW had been there, there's a good chance s/he could have taken out the shooter and helped a few of those people. In this case, that didn't happen, because there was no CCW. How is this a case against them? Simply that this time it didn't work ideally?

And have you any examples of which times it did work?

I used the words 'if', 'could have' and 'quite likely' in my post for a reason. A firearm *doesn't* make a person a superhero, and I do hope that's not the impression I'm giving. All it does is offer a chance to do something. Sometimes, like you say, a person doesn't take that opportunity. Fine. Nothing lost. Other times, the person might pull out their firearm and shoot back. A CCW *can* do good, *if* it's at the scene, and *if* it's used. Certainly not always, and maybe not even usually. Is this a reason not to allow CCWs?
Then why have CCWs at all since it would seem that more police would be MUCH better.

Then why have CCWs at all since it would seem that more police would be MUCH better.

To make sure that people that are carrying thier handguns around are of sound mind to do so. Having a CCW doesn't mean you are a police substitute. In fact, that's scary and dangerous to assume that's the role a person with a CCW has.

And of course more police are good, but again, those are two seperate issues. Police shortages are due to a lack of funds available, not because people have CCWs. That's not the intent, that never was the intent, when deciding how many police officers to put on the streets that isn't a consideration.

However in elimination of 1, all you've really done is put more guns on the black market for non-law abiding citizens to buy. Great job, you just disarmed the law abiding public while giving criminals all the guns.

You know, I've always been wondering if one of the main reason that there's far less gun crime in Europe than in the USA is the simple fact that in a society where the normal, law-abiding civilian doesn't have a gun, the criminal will have real difficulties stealing one...

However in elimination of 1, all you've really done is put more guns on the black market for non-law abiding citizens to buy. Great job, you just disarmed the law abiding public while giving criminals all the guns.

Umm can you show me an example of any occasion whereby a law abiding gun carrier has foiled a murder, by another gun carrier?

To make sure that people that are carrying thier handguns around are of sound mind to do so. Having a CCW doesn't mean you are a police substitute. In fact, that's scary and dangerous to assume that's the role a person with a CCW has.

And of course more police are good, but again, those are two seperate issues. Police shortages are due to a lack of funds available, not because people have CCWs. That's not the intent, that never was the intent, when deciding how many police officers to put on the streets that isn't a consideration.
Ah, but the argument has been put forth by many people on this board that having CCWs would almost eliminate such things from happening because they would be there BEFORE the police. Some posters have even suggested that crime would go down because criminals would be afraid to attack someone who might be armed. Finally, it has been claimed by a few that gun free zones were to blame for the most recent school shootings.

And yet here we have a shooting in a state that has a gun nuts dream list as a check list and from some of those exact same posters I get acknowledgments that their previous posts were naught but hot air. So I wonder why CCWs at all since they don't seem to do much.

by the sounds of things wendys should offer better toys

and er...must I get the charts out again of crime in Britain and America?

Well no, but mental illness, criminal history and such will prevent you from legally obtaining a weapon in many states.

but if we don't let the special have guns only the criminally special will have guns! :D

And have you any examples of which times it did work?
There's probably a half-dozen examples here...
http://www.nrapublications.org/armed%20citizen/Index.asp

They could, but would they?

Wasn't there someone with a CCW there? Maybe there was and they just didn't do anything. Having a CCW doesn't suddenly make you a fearless defender of the unarmed. It doesn't make you able to shrug off bullets like water off a duck's back.


As I say, there may well have been someone with a CCW there. Heck, there was an actual police officer in the parking lot. I'm just saying that shooting + CCW =/= dead shooter and saved-would-be-victims.

The fatally shot person's wife, who was in the parking lot, was a law enforcement officer. So much for police being the final solution to shooting sprees.

The fatally shot person's wife, who was in the parking lot, was a law enforcement officer. So much for police being the final solution to shooting sprees.

clearly what is needed is more social programs particularly in mental health

with a scandalous tax on forearms to pay for it all ;)

Then why have CCWs at all since it would seem that more police would be MUCH better.

There being a police officer at the scene when the shooting started really helped, didn't it?

clearly what is needed is more social programs particularly in mental health

with a scandalous tax on forearms to pay for it all ;)

I'll agree that we do need to help those that have mental health problems. But what do forearms have to do with anything (other than connecting my hands to my upper arms)?




:p

They connect the cold dead hands to the cold dead elbows.

So, Call to power is suggesting we tax zombies? :eek:

I'll agree that we do need to help those that have mental health problems. But what do forearms have to do with anything (other than connecting my hands to my upper arms)?




:p

They connect the cold dead hands to the cold dead elbows.

There being a police officer at the scene when the shooting started really helped, didn't it?

From the sounds of it the police officer was off-duty and may not even have been armed.

There's no answer or solution. Gun control is hardly relevant, psychos have always gone on killing rampages since the beginning of time and always will. There's no way to stop it.

Driving while intoxicated is strictly against the law.
Too many people are killed and maimed each year despite it.


They banned abortion at one point, but it didnt work out so well.

There's no answer or solution. Gun control is hardly relevant, psychos have always gone on killing rampages since the beginning of time and always will. There's no way to stop it.

If guns didnt exist at all, I think we could safely assume this particular guy may have tried to kill people with a knife or a baseball bat.

In this case, killing seemed to be his only intent.

Well no, but mental illness, criminal history and such will prevent you from legally obtaining a weapon in many states. I think those actually disqualify you on a federal level. I would have to double check that, however.

Obviously, the laws about mental health don't take into account people going gaga after they've bought their gun.



That's an assumption, firstly. Only 2% of crimes (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9502EED7153DF933A15750C0A962958260) are committed with legally purchased weapons. And if there were sensible restrictions enacted on a federal level, I'm willing to bet that number could be reduced even further. Because of the percentage of illegal guns used in crimes, doesn't it make more sense to pass legistaltion targeting the illegal guns and illegal gun ownership first? Let's learn from what happened in Washington DC duing their handgun ban (http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp):
.

I can't really check these figures.
However, do they include crimes with stolen guns ?
Do they include these kind of shooting sprees ?
Do these figures include non-violent crime?

If guns didnt exist at all, I think we could safely assume this particular guy may have tried to kill people with a knife or a baseball bat.

In this case, killing seemed to be his only intent.
Yes, but it's actually a tad easier to kill people with a gun than a knife and a baseball bat.

Driving while intoxicated is strictly against the law.
Too many people are killed and maimed each year despite it
And many people are arrested before they harm anyone. So by banning it we're reducing the harm to society.

clearly what is needed is more social programs particularly in mental health

with a scandalous tax on forearms to pay for it all ;)

Yes- we should be passing more laws to require all nuts are constantly accompanied by a social worker that suggests the difference between right and wrong,good and evil as they go about their day.

It could be a "Jimminy Cricket" law for people with a defective thought process or no conscience. Or even the ones that feel a little anti social that day.

You know, I've always been wondering if one of the main reason that there's far less gun crime in Europe than in the USA is the simple fact that in a society where the normal, law-abiding civilian doesn't have a gun, the criminal will have real difficulties stealing one...

You know, they could just import some illegal guns. Hell they import drugs from Columbia into here.

You know, they could just import some illegal guns. Hell they import drugs from Columbia into here.

True... but can you really see them putting AK-14s in condoms and swallowing them to get them over the border?

And let's look at the economics : the margin per gram of cocain is quite high. The margin per gram of gun is bound to be a lot less so, since guns aren't grown by starving farmers in Columbia who are happy to sell their crops for pennies.

Yes, there would indeed be a black market. There sure as hell is one in Europe right now, what with the demise of the Eastern European nations and the availability of their military equipment for the willing buyer. But it's nowhere near the size of the black market for drugs.
Guns became more available in Europe after the iron curtain disappeared, but they haven't turned into as much of a problem as they seem to be in the US.

wow, that paramedic would have still been alive if it weren't for a Wendy's toy. The poor kid.

However in elimination of 1, all you've really done is put more guns on the black market for non-law abiding citizens to buy. Great job, you just disarmed the law abiding public while giving criminals all the guns.
Every time some one says this, I feel the only people who will be buying guns on the black market are the "law abiding" gun nuts.

If guns didnt exist at all, I think we could safely assume this particular guy may have tried to kill people with a knife or a baseball bat.A very improbably assumption. A knife, and especially a baseball bat, are not impersonal weapons. You can't just point one at some one and killed them from across the street. Knives and baseball bats are used for two things - crimes of passions and professional hits. And you wouldn't be able to kill yourself with them. Well you could with a knife, but it's not very likely. No one is going to commit a murder-suicide with a knife and no one can with a baseball bat and murder-suicides are the trends for mad gunmen.

A very improbably assumption. A knife, and especially a baseball bat, are not impersonal weapons. You can't just point one at some one and killed them from across the street. Knives and baseball bats are used for two things - crimes of passions and professional hits. And you wouldn't be able to kill yourself with them. Well you could with a knife, but it's not very likely. No one is going to commit a murder-suicide with a knife and no one can with a baseball bat and murder-suicides are the trends for mad gunmen.

I dont think we can assume this guy- or many like him- decide to commit suicide the onset.

Planning to go into Wendy's and shot a stranger or two before killing yourself in a public place? I think the gravity of what he'd done hit him all at once and thats when suicide occured.

But-we make the mistake of thinking we can reason like mad-men.

I think I correctly assume that many of these desperate,violence driven people will not be stalled simply because a gun didnt exist.
Think of the severity of what they are doing? Shooting multiple strangers-innocents- and no clear personal gain.

I think this guy would have wandered in there with a machete or a pipe bomb just as he did with this gun-and commited a similar heinous act.

Again-we're trying to determine the reasons and motives of people that dont think like we do.

Every time some one says this, I feel the only people who will be buying guns on the black market are the "law abiding" gun nuts.

Yes, but if they did buy a gun on the black market, then they wouldn't be law abiding would they?

Everytime I hear the "LETS BAN GUNZ!!!111!!" argument, I feel like hitting my head against the wall because it is ultimately the stupidest solution to a problem ever. It does nothing for the cause of the problem but instead treat the symptoms. The "LETS BAN GUNZ!!!111!" crowd doesn't even take the black market into account!

Ah, but the argument has been put forth by many people on this board that having CCWs would almost eliminate such things from happening because they would be there BEFORE the police. Some posters have even suggested that crime would go down because criminals would be afraid to attack someone who might be armed. Finally, it has been claimed by a few that gun free zones were to blame for the most recent school shootings.

And yet here we have a shooting in a state that has a gun nuts dream list as a check list and from some of those exact same posters I get acknowledgments that their previous posts were naught but hot air. So I wonder why CCWs at all since they don't seem to do much.

Oh I've read the arguments on this board, and it pains me greatly that those folks are on my side of the fence. I don't think unreasonableness is a way to bring the other side to reasonableness. You're always going to have the folks that want zero gun control, you're always going to have the folks on the other side that want all guns even hunting rilfes banned no matter what. And within those two extremes you're going to find equally crazy rationalizations for their positions.

All I'm saying is I don't see why arguing from an irrational position does anything more than give the other side more ammo and more of an excuse to never consider the other side's position.

I've said this before, I don't think it's access to guns as such, but rather our fetish for guns on full display here in this thread. Until we address that, things like this will continue.

I think I correctly assume that many of these desperate,violence driven people will not be stalled simply because a gun didnt exist.
Think of the severity of what they are doing? Shooting multiple strangers-innocents- and no clear personal gain.


Even if they are not emotionally or mentally stalled, they are pragmatically. It would be pretty much impossible to kill more than one person in a public place with a knife, because you will either get taken down by a large group or every one will run away leaving you the option to only chase one person. It's extremely unlikely you wont get jumped on however. Realistically, a mass killing with a knife is not possible, certainly not with a baseball bat. Again, rotting in jail for the rest of his life having to suffer the burden of what he has done is unlikely to be an outcome he wants, he would likely prefer death, and so that would likely offer a large disincentive.

There's no answer or solution. Gun control is hardly relevant, psychos have always gone on killing rampages since the beginning of time and always will. There's no way to stop it.
The thing is that gun proliferation may be restricting the development of other techniques that would stop it. The resources and research efforts that go into arms manufacturing for "self defensive" reasons might be better spent on personal shielding or non-lethal weaponry, but with guns being perceived as an acceptable and "cool" means of protection, these resources are not going to shift without external influence.

but if we don't let the special have guns only the criminally special will have guns! :D
Well, they need something to busy themselves with. Petty crime and random shooting sprees is a career and a cry for help.


Obviously, the laws about mental health don't take into account people going gaga after they've bought their gun.
Um, yeah it kinda does... Please show me how much of the population decides to go out and kill people just to break in their new purchase 0o wave it about indiscriminately.




I can't really check these figures.
However, do they include crimes with stolen guns ?
Do they include these kind of shooting sprees ?
Do these figures include non-violent crime?
Which ones exactly? Sorry, I didn't realize you couldn't check the sites or I would have quoted more.

Let me quote the relevant parts of both sites and we can go from there.
First site was a New York Times article:
There are some 200 million guns in private ownership, about one-third of them handguns. Only about 2 percent of the latter are employed to commit crimes. It would take a Draconian, and politically impossible, confiscation of legally purchased guns to make much of a difference in the number used by criminals. Moreover, only about one-sixth of the handguns used by serious criminals are purchased from a gun shop or pawnshop.
And I think I misspoke a bit. 2% of legally purchased handguns are used in crimes, not 2% of crimes.


And this is from the second:
Washington D.C. enacted a virtual ban on handguns in 1976. Between 1976 and 1991, Washington D.C.'s homicide rate rose 200%, while the U.S. rate rose 12%.
So we are purely talking homicide on the second. And I'm going to make the assumtion it's all homicide since the article doesn't specify. Im sure I can find more info. I will be indiposed Wednesday though, so it's either tonight or Thursday.

This is not as black and white of an issue as some would try to make it into. Banning handguns outright is going to create more problems than it solves. That said, something does need to be done about the crime rate and about gun crimes.

And have you any examples of which times it did work?

Umm can you show me an example of any occasion whereby a law abiding gun carrier has foiled a murder, by another gun carrier?

1) It’s a story not even anti-gun media outlets could ignore. Matthew Murray allegedly wrote online, “All I want to do is kill and injure as many [Christians] … as I can.” Police say he made good on his word, first by killing two young students at a missionary training center outside Denver. His next target was a gathering of 7,000 people in and around the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colo. With a rifle and a backpack full of ammunition, Murray entered the church and opened fire. Sadly, two sisters were killed. One man yelled to distract the gunman and was shot in the arm. That’s when volunteer security guard Jeanne Assam, who has a concealed-carry permit and once worked in law enforcement, yelled, “Surrender!” Armed with a handgun, she walked toward
Murray and shot him several times. “It seemed like it was me, the gunman and God,” Assam recalls. His twisted plan foiled, the immobilized gunman killed himself. (Associated Press, 12/11/07)

2)Rob Pierce, Jr. was walking to dinner when two men, one a self-proclaimed Crips gang member and the other wielding a handgun, accosted him. With a gun to his back, Pierce was dragged across the street to a dimly lit area and told he was about to be killed. “It was like hell,” he explained. Pierce, a concealed-carry permit holder, drew a .357 revolver and shot one of the suspects, causing both suspects to flee. They were later apprehended. Northampton County, Pa., District Attorney John Morganelli said he hoped the incident would teach “these young thugs” that the good guys might be armed. “We don’t expect our citizens to wait and get shot. As long as I’m district attorney here, I’m probably going to err on the side of the citizen,” Morganelli said, adding he supports concealed-carry laws. (The Morning Call, Allentown, PA, 12/06/07)

3)His new home recently completed, Ken Foshee sat on the back deck with his wife and 17-year-old grandson. The last thing he expected was an attack by armed assailants. Police say the suspects demanded money and forced Foshee and his wife inside the home. One of the men shot Foshee in the hand. Meanwhile, the grandson ran next door and alerted his uncle, Ronnie Foshee, to the situation. Ronnie grabbed a gun and ran to the scene. Finding a man holding a knife to his mother’s throat, he fired a shot and the suspect fled. The other suspect was in the bedroom, severely beating Ken Foshee. Ronnie shot his father’s assailant, killing him. (The Macon Telegraph, Macon, GA,12/20/07)



"Studies indicate that firearms are used more than 2 million times a year for personal protection, and that the presence of a firearm, without a shot being fired, prevents crime in many instances. Shooting usually can be justified only where crime constitutes an immediate, imminent threat to life, limb, or, in some cases, property. Anyone is free to quote or reproduce these accounts, which are condensed from individual newspaper clippings sent to:
“The Armed Citizen,”
11250 Waples Mill Road,
Fairfax, VA 22030-9400."

Yes, but if they did buy a gun on the black market, then they wouldn't be law abiding would they?

Everytime I hear the "LETS BAN GUNZ!!!111!!" argument, I feel like hitting my head against the wall because it is ultimately the stupidest solution to a problem ever. It does nothing for the cause of the problem but instead treat the symptoms. The "LETS BAN GUNZ!!!111!" crowd doesn't even take the black market into account!

Treating the symptoms is concealed carry or relying on the police. Because you're waiting until someone with a gun kills and then try and stop them. Banning is attacking the cause (or at least something higher up the chain) because it's trying to prevent the person being able to shoot someone.

Banning guns takes into account the black market the same way every other ban does. Namely you attack it and try to make it as difficult and non-profitable as you can.

"Studies indicate that firearms are used more than 2 million times a year for personal protection, and that the presence of a firearm, without a shot being fired, prevents crime in many instances. Shooting usually can be justified only where crime constitutes an immediate, imminent threat to life, limb, or, in some cases, property. Anyone is free to quote or reproduce these accounts, which are condensed from individual newspaper clippings sent to:
“The Armed Citizen,”
11250 Waples Mill Road,
Fairfax, VA 22030-9400."
Ah, lovely unnamed, unlinked studies. What a great way to prove a point.

Treating the symptoms is concealed carry or relying on the police. Because you're waiting until someone with a gun kills and then try and stop them. Banning is attacking the cause (or at least something higher up the chain) because it's trying to prevent the person being able to shoot someone.

Banning guns takes into account the black market the same way every other ban does. Namely you attack it and try to make it as difficult and non-profitable as you can.

So tell me, how is the War on Drugs doing? or the War on Terrorism, OR the War on Poverty, and so on and so on.

Yes, but if they did buy a gun on the black market, then they wouldn't be law abiding would they?

Everytime I hear the "LETS BAN GUNZ!!!111!!" argument, I feel like hitting my head against the wall because it is ultimately the stupidest solution to a problem ever. It does nothing for the cause of the problem but instead treat the symptoms. The "LETS BAN GUNZ!!!111!" crowd doesn't even take the black market into account!

No, see, not everyone is as short sighted as you seem to be. You seem to suspect that those of us who argue for tighter gun control somehow magically forget the black market exists.

We don't. We're well aware of that fact. We are also aware that if people truly aim to misbehave, there's very little that will stop them.

I know the black market exists. I accept the fact that it exists. I recognize that if we outlaw guns, some people will still get guns, and some people will still be murdered by guns. The cat is out of the bag on that one. We can not reduce the number of violent deaths committed in this country by guns to 0.

What we can do is try to lower it, and despite your too smug by half "they forget about the black market!" whine, the question of relevance is, does strict gun control lower violent crimes committed by guns, overall. Yes the black market exists, but does strict gun control have a net positive, or net negative effect.

And judging by most eruopean nations with strict gun control laws, whose homicide rates are a third of ours or lower, the answer seems to suggest that yes, strict gun ownership does lower violent crime committed by guns.

Your little rant about "oh noes teh black market!" notwithstanding.

The excuse is some people have been born with the silly string DNA, born to loose,born to fuck up, something was going to trip this shooter up, shame he had to take people with him,free tip for loosers who want to kill themselves, just kill yourself,dont harm anyone else,you selfish asshole*

* Sick of these dickshead copy cats,go fine something new for fucks sake.

You know, they could just import some illegal guns. Hell they import drugs from Columbia into here.

Hell, criminals can MAKE them. It isn't hard, and all it would probably take is a trip to Home Depot.

So tell me, how is the War on Drugs doing? or the War on Terrorism, OR the War on Poverty, and so on and so on.

The war on terrorrism and the war on poverty are irrelevant to this discussion since despite the titles being similar what they actually refer to are very different. We're not trying to ban poverty, and the 'war on terror' is primarily being pursued on an international basis by invading countries unrelated to terrorrist attacks on the US.

But just to clarify, so you're against banning things on principle?

some idiots used guns to murder people, lets ban guns

some idiots used cars to kill people, lets ban cars

When you show me a link to a story where someone went on a killing spree of this style using only a car I'll consider your point. Until then I don't accept it as an apt comparison.

some idiots used guns to murder people, lets ban guns

some idiots used cars to kill people, lets ban cars

Hell, criminals can MAKE them. It isn't hard, and all it would probably take is a trip to Home Depot.

This is one of many reasons why a complete ban on guns is simply infeasible. Certainly, if there were no guns, these incidents would more or less stop, but dangerously unstable people would still exist. Instead of grabbing a gun and shooting up a shopping mall or other public place, the disturbed individual may instead break into their neighbor's home in the middle of the night and start stabbing everyone inside.

We can all agree that guns are tools specifically designed to kill and destroy things. However, I have not seen anyone mention the obvious fact that, for a gun to perform its intended function, it requires an operator with the intent to kill. This is the real issue here; determining the various factors that lead to someone taking this course of action. Normal people who are content with their lives do not commit violent crimes.

Implementing a nationwide ban on guns would be a very expensive undertaking; these resources would be better spent on getting mentally disturbed individuals, like the man who committed this crime, the help that they need. This incident is proof that, somewhere, there was a failure that needs to be addressed.

I am loving the non-sequitrs in this thread. Yes, take MY guns because of what SOMEONE ELSE did. Perfect.

But just to clarify, so you're against banning things on principle?

Banning things is pointless. Take the War on Drugs. We "banned" drugs in the United States and yet, people are still able to get all kinds of drugs, and the drug business in this country is actually very profitable. Also, if you ban something it has that "forbidden fruit" angle to it that gets so many idiots hooked onto it.

The same thing can be said for guns. Look at Detroit and Washington DC, these two cities have the tightest gun control, it's tighter than a drum skin, however they have the highest crime rate on crimes committed with guns. Apparently, tighting gun control laws isn't exactly helping in the case of Detroit and Washington DC.

What I find funny is that we have one shooting in a state that has liberal gun laws, and yet, the OP thinks that's all that needed to proclaim that CCW doesn't work, and we must tighten control on guns. Yea, tell you what. Take Orlando and Miami and compare their crime rates to Detroit and Washington DC and get back to me.

Take Orlando and Miami and compare their crime rates to Detroit and Washington DC and get back to me.

Why not take them and compare them to the European nation of your choice?

Why not take them and compare them to the European nation of your choice?

Because Europeans countries and the United States, completely different governing body, completely different culture and completely different people. What may work for them, eh may just not work for us. Mainly because none of the European Nations has the Second Amendment in their Constitution (if they have one), and if Politicians try to touch it to change it, well all Hell will break loose.

Because Europeans countries and the United States, completely different governing body, completely different culture and completely different people.

Well, if all these shootings are what your 'different culture' gets your 'different people', it strikes me as an even better reason to keep the guns away from them.

Well, if all these shootings are what your 'different culture' gets your 'different people', it strikes me as an even better reason to keep the guns away from them.

You completely ignored the second part of that statement, yea you're done.

Next.

You completely ignored the second part of that statement, yea you're done.

Next.

Sorry? Are you referring to the circular second part, that said 'we need guns because we're told we can have guns, therefore we need guns'?

Yeah, you're right, I ignored that. Yes, it is in your constitution; were you expecting me to argue with you on that point?

Sorry? Are you referring to the circular second part, that said 'we need guns because we're told we can have guns, therefore we need guns'?

Yeah, you're right, I ignored that. Yes, it is in your constitution; were you expecting me to argue with you on that point?

What you're failing to grasp is that we can't take a European situation and apply it to America's Situation. It's just not going to work, and it'd be one Hell of a mess.

Because Europeans countries and the United States, completely different governing body, completely different culture and completely different people.

And if we have such a violent culture, perhaps keeping guns away from us is a fairly good idea.

Mainly because none of the European Nations has the Second Amendment in their Constitution (if they have one), and if Politicians try to touch it to change it, well all Hell will break loose.

The discussion is about what should be. Trying to defeat an argument about whether we should have better gun control laws by pointing out the second amendment is like walking into an argument about whether we should build an office building in a national park and pointing out that we can't because the trees are in the way.

We're talking about whether we should have tighter gun control. Inherent in that conversation is the understanding that to do that, we'd need to change the 2nd amendment.

At least, it really should have been obvious to you.

We should have strict gun laws that only allow permits to the most cautious studious people and require them to prove on a yearly basis that they deserve to keep that permit (mental check-ups especially). Also we need more promotion of non-lethal defense methods in a wide range of areas to a wide range of people. Will the non-lethal stuff get misused? Yes, but I'd rather they get misused and have people worried about being shocked or pepper-sprayed. Will people be able to defends against all gun attacks this way? No, but it will up the probability that casualties will be lessened. Some communities are already working on this with good results.

What you're failing to grasp is that we can't take a European situation and apply it to America's Situation. It's just not going to work, and it'd be one Hell of a mess.

And again you miss the point. It is fairly impossible to disagree that american culture is more "gun obsessed" then the european culture. We value guns more, we favor guns more, we have people talking about how they'll have to pry their guns out of their cold, dead hands.

We have a gun loving culture. And you're right, european situations don't easily apply to american situations, because we have a gun loving culture, and to fix the problem of gun violence we must first fix the problem of a gun loving culture.

And you know the first step in fixing the problem of a gun loving culture? You get rid of the damned guns.

What you're failing to grasp is that we can't take a European situation and apply it to America's Situation. It's just not going to work, and it'd be one Hell of a mess.

And you're failing to grasp that I don't buy this "it's because we're different" excuse. If you want us to think that you need guns because you are by your nature a more violent people, and so you need guns for protection, then go right ahead.

But I happen to believe that if your country wanted to achieve something like gun control, it could, and so saying "it's impossible" is just trying to find an easy way out.

And again you miss the point. It is fairly impossible to disagree that american culture is more "gun obsessed" then the european culture. We value guns more, we favor guns more, we have people talking about how they'll have to pry their guns out of their cold, dead hands.

We have a gun loving culture. And you're right, european situations don't easily apply to american situations, because we have a gun loving culture, and to fix the problem of gun violence we must first fix the problem of a gun loving culture.

That's above is the reason why the European situation won't work. We do have a gun obessed culture, and it's pretty hard ingrained in our idenities as Americans. You have a better chance of hacking through a program to find the Source code.

And you know the first step in fixing the problem of a gun loving culture? You get rid of the damned guns.

But I happen to believe that if your country wanted to achieve something like gun control, it could, and so saying "it's impossible" is just trying to find an easy way out.

So, what do you two propose to do about the black market? Also saying that Western Europe doesn't have much of a black market doesn't count. Remember, this is a country that tried War on Drugs and failed horribly at it, all they did was push the drug problems underground, which is what will happen to the gun problem.

So, what do you two propose to do about the black market? Also saying that Western Europe doesn't have much of a black market doesn't count. Remember, this is a country that tried War on Drugs and failed horribly at it, all they did was push the drug problems underground, which is what will happen to the gun problem.

Of course there will always be a black market. But, as you're so found of quoting the drug market at us, answer me this: because we can't completely eliminate drugs, are we meant to just stop trying? Or do we do what we can, and try and minimise the problem as much as possible?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080304/ap_on_re_us/wendy_s_shooting&printer=1
Let me see here, Florida is indeed a shall issue state, it was one of the first IIRC. It has very liberal gun laws. It has the castle law (Stand your ground), and Wendy's is not a gun free zone so...

Why didn't one of them CCWs show up and shoot him? Isn't that the argument from our resident gun nuts after every single shooting? That if ONLY CCWs were allowed? If ONLY they could stand their ground? If ONLY it wasn't a gun free zone?

What's the answer to this one?

Because CCW is not a cure-all that's magically going to make all gun violence go away, just like any of the other so-called "solutions" to the problem.

That's above is the reason why the European situation won't work. We do have a gun obessed culture, and it's pretty hard ingrained in our idenities as Americans.

Slavery was ingrained in our identities as Americans too. Racial segregation was ingrained in our identities. Female disenfranchisement was ingrained in our identities. Native American displacement was ingrained in our identities. That's not an excuse nor should it be an excuse. Societies can change.


So, what do you two propose to do about the black market?

Step 1: read here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13500732&postcount=55)

Step 2: recognize that nobody proposes some magic solution that will make things better tomorrow. It may very well take time. Years, perhaps even generations. Hell, it might get worse before it gets better. But to change our perspective we have to change our culture of violence. And the FIRST step to doing that is getting rid of things that are the most glorified tools of violence.


Also saying that Western Europe doesn't have much of a black market doesn't count. Remember, this is a country that tried War on Drugs and failed horribly at it, all they did was push the drug problems underground, which is what will happen to the gun problem.

Because we did one thing half assed doesn't mean we should do the next one half assed.

Depends on how you define "failed". Did it get rid of drugs? No. Did it reduce the amount of drugs? Maybe. And I'll remind you again, the goal is not to END gun violence, that's impossible. The goal is to REDUCE it as much as possible. There are two possibilities for that. Arm everybody, or arm nobody.

Arming everybody seems to be fraught with far more peril than the other option.

Of course there will always be a black market. But, as you're so found of quoting the drug market at us, answer me this: because we can't completely eliminate drugs, are we meant to just stop trying? Or do we do what we can, and try and minimise the problem as much as possible?

With the drug problem, we should realize that we are just wasting millions of dollars on a problem that's never going away, and legalize drugs and make it a legal market. If it's a legal market and companies show up, then the same rules that other legal companies must abide by will be pushed upon the legal drug companies.

With the drug problem, we should realize that we are just wasting millions of dollars on a problem that's never going away, and legalize drugs and make it a legal market. If it's a legal market and companies show up, then the same rules that other legal companies must abide by will be pushed upon the legal drug companies.

that's nice. It's also entirely unrelated to this issue. Drugs are for the most part self harming. Guns are not. People with personality problems take drugs because they want to fuck themselves up. People with personality problems get guns because they want to fuck other people up.

You want to fuck yourself up, go for it. But the same ideology doesn't work when it comes to guns.

Drugs, though, are not a one way street, the immediate negative impact is on yourself, but the costs drug use, and even more so, drug abuse, poses on society are quite grave.

Any moreso than alcohol abuse?

Oops, sorry about the threadjack.

nm

that's nice. It's also entirely unrelated to this issue. Drugs are for the most part self harming. Guns are not. People with personality problems take drugs because they want to fuck themselves up. People with personality problems get guns because they want to fuck other people up.

You want to fuck yourself up, go for it. But the same ideology doesn't work when it comes to guns.

Drugs, though, are not a one way street, the immediate negative impact is on yourself, but the costs drug use, and even more so, drug abuse, poses on society are quite grave.

Because CCW's carriers aren't Super Heros, they can't be at every single shooting that happens? Just throwing it out there.

Blasphemy!
My dad got his FL CCW, and doesn't carry. I don't get it. Why go through the hassle if you aren't going to use it? Up here in KS, I got mine, and I have it on me almost constantly. I live in a nice, safe town, but I'll bet that those people in Wendy's thought they were in a nice, safe place too. Do I think it is likely that something will happen that I can prevent? Probably not. Could I live with myself if something did and I was not prepared (having the proper tools, i.e. my firearm) to properly defend the innocent people around me from harm?
We are all responsible for our own safety; obviously the little signs that say 'gun-free zone' don't deter psychopathic criminals, only the law-abiding armed citizens who can counter them. I would like to see more responsible gun-owning individuals exercise thier right to carry in public. Thus far, we have never heard about a shooting in one of the (few) places that has the little green sign that says 'Criminals beware: employees and patrons MAY be armed.' It would most certainly be interesting.

Blasphemy!
My dad got his FL CCW, and doesn't carry. I don't get it. Why go through the hassle if you aren't going to use it? Up here in KS, I got mine, and I have it on me almost constantly. I live in a nice, safe town, but I'll bet that those people in Wendy's thought they were in a nice, safe place too. Do I think it is likely that something will happen that I can prevent? Probably not. Could I live with myself if something did and I was not prepared (having the proper tools, i.e. my firearm) to properly defend the innocent people around me from harm?
We are all responsible for our own safety; obviously the little signs that say 'gun-free zone' don't deter psychopathic criminals, only the law-abiding armed citizens who can counter them. I would like to see more responsible gun-owning individuals exercise thier right to carry in public. Thus far, we have never heard about a shooting in one of the (few) places that has the little green sign that says 'Criminals beware: employees and patrons MAY be armed.' It would most certainly be interesting.

The reason I want a CT CCW permit is, in CT you can't buy a handgun without it, and you can't transport a handgun without it. I don't care about carrying for protection, as I live in a pretty good area (and for some strange reason, the Post Office frowns on its employees carrying while at work).

Any moreso than alcohol abuse?

Oops, sorry about the threadjack.

nm

You're not picking up on my point...I'm saying that guns, drugs and, since you added it, alcohol all carry social costs, and if our choice is between banning them, restricting them or permitting them, we ought to consider coming down on the side of permitting them the superior choice, because being nannied by the state carries equally great social costs, if not greater.

Not really. That would just drive the demand for it underground, and if anything, a banned substance will prove more popular than a legal one, because people would end up getting it on the grounds of "if it's banned, it must be interesting"..

How many people drink alchohol?

How many do meth?

I'm guessing the first number is higher than the second.

And you know the first step in fixing the problem of a gun loving culture? You get rid of the damned guns.

Not really. That would just drive the demand for it underground, and if anything, a banned substance will prove more popular than a legal one, because people would end up getting it on the grounds of "if it's banned, it must be interesting".

People are silly like that.

No, that's not how you fix gun culture. In broad terms, American's idolize violence and firearms are the ultimate expression of that. It doesn't help that the media in general portrays it that way too.

What needs to be done is to completely kill idolizing of violence, or barring that, guns as their method of expression violence. Probably a long running media blitz and campaign showcasing guns as something that is only for the weak minded and the like.

What I'm saying is that on the off chance someone is carrying a weapon at the scene of a crime, chances are that the person will use it (people don't go get these licences on a whim). Not once did I say that a CCW will pop out of nowhere to save the day, and the event in the OP is a perfect example of that. Strawman anyone?



Alright, I'll be generous and accept your 'minority of cases'. What reason do we have to disallow CCW?

So my questions are simple. If there are no people with ccw permits then how many deaths could they prevent? If someone with a ccw (I am one) can save 1 out of 10 cases isn't that a 10% decrease in deaths as a result of ccw? I'm not saying that someone with a ccw can always be there to save the day. In this instance there was no one there who could have shot the assailant. Guns are not going away in America so people need to deal with that fact. Should gun laws be tightened and have a longer waiting time for people to obtain them in order to get a fuller background picture? Sure, that would be helpful. As someone pointed out earlier, banning guns only makes them more expensive and generally accessible on the black market which caters to criminals. Responsible people carrying weapons is not the problem. the problem is the ease of which people who are unstable are able to get them. I usually carry this weapon http://www.remtek.com/arms/sig/model/229/229.htm

If I do not have the above mentioned Sig .40, I carry a Glock 17 seen here

http://www.impactguns.com/store/PI1750703.html

I've said before I am a Libertarian and believe in more freedom rather than government intervention. I will, however, agree that when it comes to gun and who carries then some regulation is needed.

that's nice. It's also entirely unrelated to this issue. Drugs are for the most part self harming. Guns are not. People with personality problems take drugs because they want to fuck themselves up. People with personality problems get guns because they want to fuck other people up.

You want to fuck yourself up, go for it. But the same ideology doesn't work when it comes to guns.

Agreed, this is why we have crimes that cover gun violence. You may not use a weapon in the commission of a crime as it carries a higher penalty than without one. People with personality problems can use knives, bats, and other means to hurt, maim, or kill. If you use a gun in a crime you will be sentenced more harshly. As a lawyer you know this very well.

It would probably have happened anyway. At any rate, my condolences to the victims and their families.

Why does everyone else see this so black and white? Can't we take sensible steps to reduce gun violence and still allow people to legally own (and use) firearms?

Because CCW is not a cure-all that's magically going to make all gun violence go away, just like any of the other so-called "solutions" to the problem.

Just like a doctor would, you get the symptoms in control and treat the cause at the same time. Taking care of the symptoms could be anything from tighter gun laws, more police or CCWs. Each has its benefits and drawbacks, and each is useful. It's not like we can't do all three.

Treating the cause is a far different story, and it's something that the US has dropped the ball on. Why don't we spend more money on our mediocre education system? American schools used to be some of the best in the world, and since higher levels of education directly correlate with lower levels of crime, it seems like a no-brainer to me.

Ah, lovely unnamed, unlinked studies. What a great way to prove a point.

Ah, completely ignoring the fact that what I posted actually provided something you didn't want to see- support for the idea that concealed carry might actually help people on occasion- and instead attacking the blurb I threw purely for citational purposes. Great way to be open in an open debate.

Hmm. Don't you love it when everytime someone kills someone with a gun, just about everyone on here blames guns, but when an illegal immigrant kills 4 innocent children, ends the promising sports carrers off 3 others, because she failed to learn how to drive and ran a stop sign going atleast 20 miles an hour faster than the speed limit, no-one says a thing? Where's the same blame on illegal Immigrants? Or cars?

Ah, completely ignoring the fact that what I posted actually provided something you didn't want to see- support for the idea that concealed carry might actually help people on occasion- and instead attacking the blurb I threw purely for citational purposes. Great way to be open in an open debate.

You're new. So I'll tell you this. On NSG, any factual events/study you want to allude to, no matter how obvious is may seem to you, must be sourced for the argument. Lack of valid links for further study is regarded as an attempt at fabrication which has occurred too often on NSG for it to be viewed otherwise.

How many people drink alchohol?

How many do meth?

I'm guessing the first number is higher than the second.

That's an invalid comparison. I understand that you might have been under the wrong impression that I meant any and all substances for comparison, but that's not what I meant. I meant the consumption of a banned substance compared to when it's not banned. You want to compare alchohol consumption before and during the Prohibition era.

Treating the cause is a far different story, and it's something that the US has dropped the ball on. Why don't we spend more money on our mediocre education system? American schools used to be some of the best in the world, and since higher levels of education directly correlate with lower levels of crime, it seems like a no-brainer to me.

If you look at it from a social issue, it's not that hard to understand why. Intellectualism has been having a rather bad time of it in America, stemming way back from the days when prayer in school was near mandatory and got challenged I suspect.

I mean, take a look at how it's intellectualism is portrayed in American media. Hardly in any flattering light, while non-intellectual pursuits are idolized. And then follow through with how the more fundamentalist people push their agenda in issues of faith vs science like the Kansas education board.

Of course, one can also look at it from the economics viewpoint. Government spending for education has typically been one of the lowest in terms of their slice of the pie. Why's that? It's a simple thing really. A congressman who gets a new road built, or a factory started up in his area automatically translates into fairly immediate payoffs in terms of jobs and revenue, and his constituents are happy, so they'll vote for him next time.

Education on the other hand, won't produce dividends until about 8 or more years down the line, and with high education standards, people won't credit their representatives, but the teachers. Not to mention that knowledgeable and well educated children doesn't necessarily translate into good jobs for the parents.

And of course, one cannot forget that when it comes to funding pork projects, few parents, and hardly any constituents, bats an eyelash when a 90% of the budget is taken from their children's schools, and would rather blame the teachers when the cash crunch hits.

So in summary, religious zealots + short term benefits + politicking pork projects = poorly funded and viewed education.

Hmm. Don't you love it when everytime someone kills someone with a gun, just about everyone on here blames guns, but when an illegal immigrant kills 4 innocent children, ends the promising sports carrers off 3 others, because she failed to learn how to drive and ran a stop sign going atleast 20 miles an hour faster than the speed limit, no-one says a thing? Where's the same blame on illegal Immigrants? Or cars?

Because generally, people want to blame some vague, random "other team," and use isolated incidents like this to rally their team-mates and do some pep songs. Chest-thumping and intimidating growling ensues.

Whatever happened to blaming an individual for his or her own actions? Why is it suddenly a random Muslim represents all Muslims, immigrant = all immigrants, gun criminal = gun use, x = communism, y = fascism, a = liberals, b = conservatives? Because people want teams and it's easier, when one is submerging one's identity in some cheap blanket ideology, to think of everyone else as having done the same thing.

Because generally, people want to blame some vague, random "other team," and use isolated incidents like this to rally their team-mates and do some pep songs. Chest-thumping and intimidating growling ensues.

Whatever happened to blaming an individual for his or her own actions? Why is it suddenly a random Muslim represents all Muslims, immigrant = all immigrants, gun criminal = gun use, x = communism, y = fascism, a = liberals, b = conservatives? Because people want teams and it's easier, when one is submerging one's identity in some cheap blanket ideology, to think of everyone else as having done the same thing.

What I meant was, its been 2 weeks since this happened, and not a signle pledge to crackdown on Illegal Immigration. If we had enforced the current laws, she wouldn't have been in the country and unable to kill those children. Then I would be able to ride that bus and not have to choke through another week of grieving.

It's strange that Americans will take up arms to defend the statistically tiny chance of a burglary or minor case of trespassing, yet they will remain impassively apathetic when it comes to the economic exploitation inflicted on them every day. Strange.

It's strange that Americans will take up arms to defend the statistically tiny chance of a burglary or minor case of trespassing, yet they will remain impassively apathetic when it comes to the economic exploitation inflicted on them every day. Strange.

Perhaps it's because the vast majority of Americans are not raging communists who believe that everything around them is a sign of the hated capitalist oppressors against whom the revolution must be fought? Just a thought.

Meh

I was on the bus that crashed.(I had gotten off 5 minutes before the crash) I was sitting next to some of the dead. One, was the daughter of my PE teacher, and the daughter of the best man at my parents wedding, the sister of a girl in my class. When this happens in a town of this size, everybody knows everybody. Its like losing extended family.

What I meant was, its been 2 weeks since this happened, and not a signle pledge to crackdown on Illegal Immigration.

Good.

If we had enforced the current laws, she wouldn't have been in the country and unable to kill those children.

If we had enforced the current laws, she wouldn't have been able to kill those children because killing is against the law.

Where's the pledge to crack down on psycho killers? No, too specific? Have to generalize to illegal immigrants?

A black man cut me off in traffic today. THE AFRICAN PEOPLE ARE OUT TO GET ME!

Then I would be able to ride that bus and not have to choke through another week of grieving.

Meh

You're new. So I'll tell you this. On NSG, any factual events/study you want to allude to, no matter how obvious is may seem to you, must be sourced for the argument. Lack of valid links for further study is regarded as an attempt at fabrication which has occurred too often on NSG for it to be viewed otherwise.

No, you don't understand. That was exactly what was written on the site I pulled those stories off of. I didn't write anything original in that post, I simply copied and pasted the bit that gave me permission to do so. Here, I'll paste in the link.

http://www.nrapublications.org/armed%20citizen/index.asp

Look on the right side of the page.

No, you don't understand. That was exactly what was written on the site I pulled those stories off of. I didn't write anything original in that post, I simply copied and pasted the bit that gave me permission to do so. Here, I'll paste in the link.

http://www.nrapublications.org/armed%20citizen/index.asp

Look on the right side of the page.

I understand perfectly well that this link was not present in your first post in this thread. That was the problem.

2nd rule of making factual arguments. Never, ever, utilize a pro/anti subject website for your argument. By their nature, they cannot be unbiased, and any information from it would be viewed as suspect.

The NRA is clearly pro-gun.

For example, would you believe someone who referred to the KKK website as proof of the superiority of the Aryan race?

What I meant was, its been 2 weeks since this happened, and not a signle pledge to crackdown on Illegal Immigration. If we had enforced the current laws, she wouldn't have been in the country and unable to kill those children. Then I would be able to ride that bus and not have to choke through another week of grieving.

I don't see how her being an illegal immigrant caused the crash and the deaths.
My reaction to this would be to call for more regular checks on drivers to make sure to ctach people driving without license BEFORE they cause an accident like this.
But, see, from a politician's point of view, that's not a good idea cause it'll cost money.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080304/ap_on_re_us/wendy_s_shooting&printer=1
Let me see here, Florida is indeed a shall issue state, it was one of the first IIRC. It has very liberal gun laws. It has the castle law (Stand your ground), and Wendy's is not a gun free zone so...

Why didn't one of them CCWs show up and shoot him? Isn't that the argument from our resident gun nuts after every single shooting? That if ONLY CCWs were allowed? If ONLY they could stand their ground? If ONLY it wasn't a gun free zone?

What's the answer to this one?

If only the people in the restaurant had taken advantage of being CCW carriers, and had guns...

I understand perfectly well that this link was not present in your first post in this thread. That was the problem.

2nd rule of making factual arguments. Never, ever, utilize a pro/anti subject website for your argument. By their nature, they cannot be unbiased, and any information from it would be viewed as suspect.

The NRA is clearly pro-gun.

For example, would you believe someone who referred to the KKK website as proof of the superiority of the Aryan race?

Look, the purpose of making the post was to answer a specific question- that is, could anyone provide an example of a case in which someone with a permit to carry prevented a murder. While the site I linked to is the NRA, which is, admittedly, biased, the actual examples of the guns being used, from the NRA website, are all from newspapers, not the NRA itself. So no, the actual bit of the NRA website I used is not particularly biased, as the origin of the information is not the NRA itself, but assorted local newspapers, the NRA was just willing to put the articles in the same place.