Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This kind of makes my point however that a lawfully armed citizen shouldn't be stripped of protection if they have to go to a police station, which is apparently a very dangerous place. So dangerous in fact that all the police inside the station carry guns.
Have you ever noticed there are no (well, few) active shootings in police departments or say FBI offices?
That's because everyone has a gun and anybody who tries shooting up the place is going to get blown into little pieces in very short order.
So why is it so difficult to extend this simple right to legally armed citizens? Many of us are better trained than most police officers, but we can't carry in police offices due to the "us against them" attitude of law enforcement. "They" are "better" than the rest of us, and we should not be "trusted" with guns because we aren't cops, which makes us second class citizens unworthy of self protection.
I understand the aspect of armed criminals entering the police station. But they can do that anyway. I for one don't wish to be the only person left without a gun if that happens.
No gun zones of any sort are just a control to create a sub class of defensless citizens who must submit to those with guns. We need to remove these barriers. Sam Colt made everyone equal, but not if someone else can take your colt away.
There are shootings in police stations. I cop was just killed recently sitting right out front of the station in his police car. The cop was armed, and there were a lot of armed policemen just feet away.
Citizens having guns, like they do, can be helpful, and sometimes not. Because of the element of surprise. You know that.
When that guy with a gun shot that female politician in Texas a few years ago, someone in the crowd had a gun but could not prevent the shooting, because it was the element of surprise. I think he ultimately did shoot the guy or at least get his gun out...at about the same time as others physically got him. But a gun in the crowd didn't stop the shooting.
And remember that all people won't and don't carry guns, even though they can. Only a small percentage of the public wants to carry a gun.
We can carry guns, you know, in most states. You have to get a license to carry a concealed gun. In some cases you can carry a gun w/o a license, if it's visible. In most states you can carry a loaded firearm in your car, the same as you can in your house.
Bad guys plan these things, so they always have the element of surprise.
Increased guns in some instances increases death and injury, because it becomes so easy to get carried away with the emotion of the moment and shoot someone, like in a bar brawl or because of road rage. This is not an uncommon occurrence.
Because there are so many guns around, it behooves others to also carry guns. However, it's worth noting that in countries where guns are limited, there are far fewer murders. Guns make it so easy to kill without thinking, and it's more likely that someone will die from being shot, whereas a stabbing makes it more likely that a person will survive, and definitely the other people if there is more than one person.
Example: Two kids in a tenement elevator get in with a big man. During the elevator ride he pulls out a knife and stabs both children. I'm not kidding. Horrible. Who would do such a thing? Blood everywhere. Stabbed two little children. Elevator door opens and he calmly walks away. Someone said, "See? Guns don't kill. It's the people." Wrong. I pointed out that if he'd used a gun, both kids would've died. Because he used a knife, one of the children did survive.
There are shootings in police stations. I cop was just killed recently sitting right out front of the station in his police car. The cop was armed, and there were a lot of armed policemen just feet away.
Citizens having guns, like they do, can be helpful, and sometimes not. Because of the element of surprise. You know that.
When that guy with a gun shot that female politician in Texas a few years ago, someone in the crowd had a gun but could not prevent the shooting, because it was the element of surprise. I think he ultimately did shoot the guy or at least get his gun out...at about the same time as others physically got him. But a gun in the crowd didn't stop the shooting.
And remember that all people won't and don't carry guns, even though they can. Only a small percentage of the public wants to carry a gun.
We can carry guns, you know, in most states. You have to get a license to carry a concealed gun. In some cases you can carry a gun w/o a license, if it's visible. In most states you can carry a loaded firearm in your car, the same as you can in your house.
Bad guys plan these things, so they always have the element of surprise.
Increased guns in some instances increases death and injury, because it becomes so easy to get carried away with the emotion of the moment and shoot someone, like in a bar brawl or because of road rage. This is not an uncommon occurrence.
Because there are so many guns around, it behooves others to also carry guns. However, it's worth noting that in countries where guns are limited, there are far fewer murders. Guns make it so easy to kill without thinking, and it's more likely that someone will die from being shot, whereas a stabbing makes it more likely that a person will survive, and definitely the other people if there is more than one person.
Example: Two kids in a tenement elevator get in with a big man. During the elevator ride he pulls out a knife and stabs both children. I'm not kidding. Horrible. Who would do such a thing? Blood everywhere. Stabbed two little children. Elevator door opens and he calmly walks away. Someone said, "See? Guns don't kill. It's the people." Wrong. I pointed out that if he'd used a gun, both kids would've died. Because he used a knife, one of the children did survive.
Agree with everything up until the bolded parts, that's where we can verify the claims.
Your first claim, "where guns are limited, there are far fewer murders", that's not exactly true. Let's take a few examples of developed countries (per OECD): United States, Brazil, Mexico, Russia, and Chile. Of those, the United States has roughly 9 times more guns per capita than any of the others. It's much harder to get a gun in Brazil, Mexico, Russia, and Chile. Now take a look at the homicide rates for those same countries. Chile is on par with the US (shouldn't it be safer?). Russia has 3 times more murders (shouldn't it be safer?). Mexico has 6 times more murders (shouldn't it be safer?). Brazil has almost 7 times more murders (shouldn't it be safer?).
So no, gun access doesn't make a country safer. Even in Australia where they did massive bans and gun buybacks, the homicide declining trend didn't accelerate at all. Talk about a waste of hundreds of millions of dollars.
For your second claim, that's purely anecdotal. We could trade anecdotes all day about this (would a woman be able to defend herself against a rapist armed with a knife equally well with her knife or her gun?). That's a rather meaningless exercise though, isn't it?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
