Would Stricter Gun Control Laws Prevent Shootings?

[ASUG8]

It won't help. There's already so much proliferation of guns in the US that if you completely shut down gun sales altogether there are enough in circulation to continue to do Tucson-like events or standard home invasions or robberies for decades to come. I know people with a veritable arsenal at their homes that I wouldn't trust to babysit - how are you going to control those situations? Loosening gun requirements isn't the answer either. I'm not sure how I feel about being at a favorite restaurant with 30 patrons packing a weapon Wyatt Earp style knowing that if something goes down you have an injured/dead gunman plus a lot of injured/dead diners or employees from errant fire.

[Col Hogan]

Police are around to enforce laws, not prevent crime.

Whats the matter kalm, you find that fact hard to swallow...

It is a fact...in fact, there is case law to back it up...

Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981)

Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers."

The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." [4] There are many similar cases with results to the same effect. [5]

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasle ... ction.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If that's not enough, here is some more cases to back it up...

See, for example, Riss v. City of New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579, 293 NYS2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 860 (N.Y. Ct. of Ap. 1958); Keane v. City of Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1968); Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1983); Calogrides v. City of Mobile, 475 So.2d 560 (S.Ct. A;a. 1985); Morris v. Musser, 478 A.2d 937 (1984); Davidson v. City of Westminster, 32 C.3d 197, 185 Cal.Rptr. 252, 649 P.2d 894 (S.Ct. Cal. 1982); Chapman v. City of Philadelphia, 434 A.2d 753 (Sup.Ct. Penn. 1981); Weutrich v. Delia, 155 N.J. Super 324, 326, 382 A.2d 929, 930 (1978); Sapp v. City of Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla.Ct. of Ap. 1977); Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E. 2d 871 (Ind.Ct. of Ap.); Silver v. City of Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (S.Ct. Minn. 1969) and Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 61 (7th Cir. 1982).

[kalm]

Whats the matter kalm, you find that fact hard to swallow...

It is a fact...in fact, there is case law to back it up...

Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981)

Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers."

The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." [4] There are many similar cases with results to the same effect. [5]

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasle ... ction.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If that's not enough, here is some more cases to back it up...

See, for example, Riss v. City of New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579, 293 NYS2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 860 (N.Y. Ct. of Ap. 1958); Keane v. City of Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1968); Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1983); Calogrides v. City of Mobile, 475 So.2d 560 (S.Ct. A;a. 1985); Morris v. Musser, 478 A.2d 937 (1984); Davidson v. City of Westminster, 32 C.3d 197, 185 Cal.Rptr. 252, 649 P.2d 894 (S.Ct. Cal. 1982); Chapman v. City of Philadelphia, 434 A.2d 753 (Sup.Ct. Penn. 1981); Weutrich v. Delia, 155 N.J. Super 324, 326, 382 A.2d 929, 930 (1978); Sapp v. City of Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla.Ct. of Ap. 1977); Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E. 2d 871 (Ind.Ct. of Ap.); Silver v. City of Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (S.Ct. Minn. 1969) and Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 61 (7th Cir. 1982).

Crime prevention task forces, drug interdiction, community policing, unmanned cop cars on main street, McGruff...

Whatever hoagie.

[D1B]

Whats the matter kalm, you find that fact hard to swallow...

It is a fact...in fact, there is case law to back it up...

Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981)



http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasle ... ction.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If that's not enough, here is some more cases to back it up...

See, for example, Riss v. City of New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579, 293 NYS2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 860 (N.Y. Ct. of Ap. 1958); Keane v. City of Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1968); Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1983); Calogrides v. City of Mobile, 475 So.2d 560 (S.Ct. A;a. 1985); Morris v. Musser, 478 A.2d 937 (1984); Davidson v. City of Westminster, 32 C.3d 197, 185 Cal.Rptr. 252, 649 P.2d 894 (S.Ct. Cal. 1982); Chapman v. City of Philadelphia, 434 A.2d 753 (Sup.Ct. Penn. 1981); Weutrich v. Delia, 155 N.J. Super 324, 326, 382 A.2d 929, 930 (1978); Sapp v. City of Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla.Ct. of Ap. 1977); Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E. 2d 871 (Ind.Ct. of Ap.); Silver v. City of Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (S.Ct. Minn. 1969) and Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 61 (7th Cir. 1982).

Crime prevention task forces, drug interdiction, community policing, unmanned cop cars on main street, McGruff...

Whatever hoagie.

Hogan - what an asshole.

Effective police departments are heavily involved in crime prevention. I work on a task force with my local department.

[ASUG8]

Crime prevention task forces, drug interdiction, community policing, unmanned cop cars on main street, McGruff...

Whatever hoagie.

Hogan - what an asshole.

Effective police departments are heavily involved in crime prevention. I work on a task force with my local department.

D1B working on his undercover task farce.

[BlueHen86]

Wow. What a terrible lack of comprehension on your part. Your response had nothing to do with my statement.

you implied that we only need a police force to protect us. or made it sound that way...

Like I said, a terrible lack of comprehension on your part.

You made a statement that gun control doesn't work and that it doesn't prevent people from getting shot. Using that logic I argued that a police force doesn't work because it doesn't prevent crime.

How do you know that gun control doesn't prevent people from getting shot? There might be more shootings if we had no gun laws at all. No gun control means that it would be just as easy to buy an automatic weapon as it would be to buy a pack of gum.

[BlueHen86]

Police are around to enforce laws, not prevent crime.

Really? So if the police were at the Giffords event last weekend and they saw that Laughner was about to open fire they aren't obligated to try and stop him, only to arrest him afterwards?

Sorry, not buying it.

[Col Hogan]

Police are around to enforce laws, not prevent crime.

Really? So if the police were at the Giffords event last weekend and they saw that Laughner was about to open fire they aren't obligated to try and stop him, only to arrest him afterwards?

Sorry, not buying it.

So, if their job is to protect citizens, why weren't they there to stop Loughner???

I said...and the case law I cited said, that police departments are not required to protect citizens...

Their basic job is to investigate crime and detain potential criminals...

If they stop a crime before it happens...good on them...

[BlueHen86]

Really? So if the police were at the Giffords event last weekend and they saw that Laughner was about to open fire they aren't obligated to try and stop him, only to arrest him afterwards?

Sorry, not buying it.

So, if their job is to protect citizens, why weren't they there to stop Loughner???

I said...and the case law I cited said, that police departments are not required to protect citizens...

Their basic job is to investigate crime and detain potential criminals...

If they stop a crime before it happens...good on them...

It's unreasonable to expect them to prevent all crime, hence the court cases that you cited. But that doesn't change the fact that part of their job is to prevent crime as best that they can, otherwise you would never see a police presence at protests and public gatherings.

[Col Hogan]

So, if their job is to protect citizens, why weren't they there to stop Loughner???

I said...and the case law I cited said, that police departments are not required to protect citizens...

Their basic job is to investigate crime and detain potential criminals...

If they stop a crime before it happens...good on them...

It's unreasonable to expect them to prevent all crime, hence the court cases that you cited. But that doesn't change the fact that part of their job is to prevent crime as best that they can, otherwise you would never see a police presence at protests and public gatherings.

When seconds count, the police are only minutes away...

Protect yourself!!!!

[D1B]

It's unreasonable to expect them to prevent all crime, hence the court cases that you cited. But that doesn't change the fact that part of their job is to prevent crime as best that they can, otherwise you would never see a police presence at protests and public gatherings.

When seconds count, the police are only minutes away...

Protect yourself!!!!

Nice surrender, Joltin Joe.

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Speaking of surrender you just folded like a chinese lawn chair.

[D1B]

Speaking of surrender you just folded like a chinese lawn chair.

WTF - knocked this out at the beginnning Alpajiz1.

Naive (and other conk pundits who don't have, or are afraid of, the solution) in public discourse often stack the deck in their favor by appealing to oversimplification. This is a perfect example and even that retard knows that what happened goes far beyond, but doesn't exclude, "stricter gun control laws". Aint worth even debating so we just call him an idiot, like you.

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Coming from a person like you it carries little weight. Anyone not bright enough to understand that the gun laws dont work will never get it and will just keep being stupid enough to hit the democratic feeder bar.

You got no statistics to back up any of your idiotic ramblings, your just like a chick with a high estrogen level that runs her life on feelings instead of common sense. Typical liberal mindset trying to tell other people how to live their lives because you think you know whats best.........and it just keeps on NOT working....so throw more money and laws at it..............

[D1B]

Coming from a person like you it carries little weight. Anyone not bright enough to understand that the gun laws dont work will never get it and will just keep being stupid enough to hit the democratic feeder bar.

You got no statistics to back up any of your idiotic ramblings, your just like a chick with a high estrogen level that runs her life on feelings instead of common sense. Typical liberal mindset trying to tell other people how to live their lives because you think you know whats best.........and it just keeps on NOT working....so throw more money and laws at it..............

I'm not advocating banning guns. I think we can and should do more to force responsible ownership and limit access to mentally ill fucks, like you.

11 Facts about Gun Control

In 2005, a total of 3,027 young people were killed by firearms in the U.S.

About 81% of murder victims aged 12 to 24 years old were killed with a firearm in 2005.
In the same year, firearms were responsible for 52% of deaths for African Americans.

Firearms are the second-leading cause of death (after motor vehicle accidents) for young people 19 and under in the U.S.

The rate of firearm death of under 14-years-olds is nearly 12 times higher in the U.S. than in 25 other industrialized countries combined.

About 34% of households in the U.S. contain a gun. This translates into a loaded goal in one in every ten households with children, and a gun that’s left unlocked and just “hidden away” in one in every eight family homes.

The risk of homicide in the home is three times greater in households with guns.

The risk of suicide is five times greater in households with guns.

Suicides accounted for 55% of the nation’s nearly 31,000 firearm death in 2005.

Gun-related suicides have outnumbered firearm homicides and accidents for 20 of the last 25 years.

More than 90% of suicide attempts using guns are successful, while the success rate for jumping from high places is 34%.

Sources:
Brady Campaign
News Batch
NEA Health Information Network

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

The Brady campaign!!



Maybe when I feel like it I will cherry pick some stats like you did..................all of them are false and made to look good so the wheelchairs wife can sleep at night.





BTW Hinckley put a bullet in the wrong head it should have been Bradys wife, he seems like a decent dude.

[D1B]

The Brady campaign!!



Maybe when I feel like it I will cherry pick some stats like you did..................all of them are false and made to look good so the wheelchairs wife can sleep at night.





BTW Hinckley put a bullet in the wrong head it should have been Bradys wife, he seems like a decent dude.

Great argument Jizzy! Shit, you should become a lawyer or a master debater!

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

There is nothing to argue against.

You posted cherry picked stats from a radical left wing site.

[D1B]

There is nothing to argue against.

You posted cherry picked stats from a radical left wing site.

Argue the validity of the stats not the source, Alphie.

[grizzaholic]

There is nothing to argue against.

You posted cherry picked stats from a radical left wing site.

Argue the validity of the stats not the source, Alphie.

And once again, take a good look in the mirror before you post.

[D1B]

Argue the validity of the stats not the source, Alphie.

And once again, take a good look in the mirror before you post.

Yeah, will do Gil Dobie.

[BlueHen86]

Coming from a person like you it carries little weight. Anyone not bright enough to understand that the gun laws dont work will never get it and will just keep being stupid enough to hit the democratic feeder bar.

You got no statistics to back up any of your idiotic ramblings, your just like a chick with a high estrogen level that runs her life on feelings instead of common sense. Typical liberal mindset trying to tell other people how to live their lives because you think you know whats best.........and it just keeps on NOT working....so throw more money and laws at it..............

Which laws? All of them? I agree that there are some (maybe a lot) stupid and ineffective gun laws, but I don't agree that all of them don't work.

[BDKJMU]

Coming from a person like you it carries little weight. Anyone not bright enough to understand that the gun laws dont work will never get it and will just keep being stupid enough to hit the democratic feeder bar.

You got no statistics to back up any of your idiotic ramblings, your just like a chick with a high estrogen level that runs her life on feelings instead of common sense. Typical liberal mindset trying to tell other people how to live their lives because you think you know whats best.........and it just keeps on NOT working....so throw more money and laws at it..............

I'm not advocating banning guns. I think we can and should do more to force responsible ownership and limit access to mentally ill ****, like you.

11 Facts about Gun Control

In 2005, a total of 3,027 young people were killed by firearms in the U.S.

Yeah, and # that includes suicides (if people want to off themselves they are going to whether they have access to firearms or not) and justified self defense, whether by citizens or police.

Firearms are the second-leading cause of death (after motor vehicle accidents) for young people 19 and under in the U.S.

Bullshit.

Gun Control: Myths and Realities

1. Thousands of children die annually in gun accidents.

False. Gun accidents involving children are actually at record lows, although you wouldn't know it from listening to the mainstream media. In 1997, the last year for which data are available, only 142 children under 15 years of age died in gun accidents, and the total number of gun-related deaths for this age group was 642. More children die each year in accidents involving bikes, space heaters or drownings. The often repeated claim that 12 children per day die from gun violence includes "children" up to 20 years of age, the great majority of whom are young adult males who die in gang-related violence.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4706" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The rate of firearm death of under 14-years-olds is nearly 12 times higher in the U.S. than in 25 other industrialized countries combined.

What other 25 industrial countries. How about a link?

The risk of homicide in the home is three times greater in households with guns.

Of course that includes homicide to the intruder/burglar/armed robberer/rapist, etc.

MYTH 3:"Since a gun in a home is many times more likely to kill a family member than to stop a criminal, armed citizens are not a deterrent to crime."

This myth, stemming from a superficial "study" of firearm accidents in the Cleveland, Ohio, area, represents a comparison of 148 accidental deaths (including suicides) to the deaths of 23 intruders killed by home owners over a 16-year period. 2

Gross errors in this and similar "studies"--with even greater claimed ratios of harm to good--include: the assumption that a gun hasn't been used for protection unless an assailant dies; no distinction is made between handgun and long gun deaths; all accidental firearm fatalities were counted whether the deceased was part of the "family" or not; all accidents were counted whether they occurred in the home or not, while self-defense outside the home was excluded; almost half the self-defense uses of guns in the home were excluded on the grounds that the criminal intruder killed may not have been a total stranger to the home defender; suicides were sometimes counted and some self-defense shootings misclassified. Cleveland's experience with crime and accidents during the study period was atypical of the nation as a whole and of Cleveland since the mid-1970s. Moreover, in a later study, the same researchers noted that roughly 10% of killings by civilians are justifiable homicides. 3

The "guns in the home" myth has been repeated time and again by the media, and anti-gun academics continue to build on it. In 1993, Dr. Arthur Kellermann of Emory University and a number of colleagues presented a study that claimed to show that a home with a gun was much more likely to experience a homicide.4 However, Dr. Kellermann selected for his study only homes where homicides had taken place--ignoring the millions of homes with firearms where no harm is done--and a control group that was not representative of American households. By only looking at homes where homicides had occurred and failing to control for more pertinent variables, such as prior criminal record or histories of violence, Kellermann et al. skewed the results of this study. Prof. Kleck wrote that with the methodology used by Kellermann, one could prove that since diabetics are much more likely to possess insulin than non-diabetics, possession of insulin is a risk factor for diabetes. Even Dr. Kellermann admitted this in his study: "It is possible that reverse causation accounted for some of the association we observed between gun ownership and homicide." Law Professor Daniel D. Polsby went further, "Indeed the point is stronger than that: 'reverse causation' may account for most of the association between gun ownership and homicide. Kellermann's data simply do not allow one to draw any conclusion."5

Research conducted by Professors James Wright and Peter Rossi,6 for a landmark study funded by the U.S. Department of Justice, points to the armed citizen as possibly the most effective deterrent to crime in the nation. Wright and Rossi questioned over 1,800 felons serving time in prisons across the nation and found:

81% agreed the "smart criminal" will try to find out if a potential victim is armed.
74% felt that burglars avoided occupied dwellings for fear of being shot.
80% of "handgun predators" had encountered armed citizens.
40% did not commit a specific crime for fear that the victim was armed.
34% of "handgun predators" were scared off or shot at by armed victims.
57% felt that the typical criminal feared being shot by citizens more than he feared being shot by police.
Professor Kleck estimates that annually 1,500-2,800 felons are legally killed in "excusable self-defense" or "justifiable" shootings by civilians, and 8,000-16,000 criminals are wounded. This compares to 300-600 justifiable homicides by police. Yet, in most instances, civilians used a firearm to threaten, apprehend, shoot at a criminal, or to fire a warning shot without injuring anyone.

Based on his extensive independent survey research, Kleck estimates that each year Americans use guns for protection from criminals more than 2.5 million times annually. 7 U.S. Department of Justice victimization surveys show that protective use of a gun lessens the chance that robberies, rapes, and assaults will be successfully completed while also reducing the likelihood of victim injury. Clearly, criminals fear armed citizens.

2 Rushforth, et al., "Accidental Firearm Fatalities in a Metropolitan County, " 100 American Journal of Epidemiology 499 (1975).
3 Rushforth, et al., "Violent Death in a Metropolitan County," 297 New England Journal of Medicine 531, 533 (1977).
4 Kellermann, et al., "Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home," New England Journal of Medicine 467 (1993).
5 Polsby, "The False Promise of Gun Control," The Atlantic Monthly, March 1994.
6 Wright and Rossi, Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms (N.Y.: Aldine de Gruyter, 1986).
7 Kleck, interview, Orange County Register,Sept. 19, 1993
http://www.duke.edu/~gnsmith/articles/myths.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The risk of suicide is five times greater in households with guns.

Bullshit.
Suicide
Gun bans result in lower gun suicide rates, but a compensatory increase in suicide from other accessible and lethal means of suicide (hanging, leaping, auto exhaust, etc.). The net result of gun bans? No reduction in total suicide rates. [3] People who are intent in killing themselves find the means to do so. Are other means of suicide so much more politically correct that we should focus on measures that decrease gun suicide, but do nothing to reduce total suicide deaths?
http://rense.com/general76/mths.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Suicides accounted for 55% of the nation’s nearly 31,000 firearm death in 2005.

So what. See above.

Gun-related suicides have outnumbered firearm homicides and accidents for 20 of the last 25 years.

So what. See above

More than 90% of suicide attempts using guns are successful, while the success rate for jumping from high places is 34%.

So what, see above.

And how about a link for all of your ahem, "Facts"

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Fu*king Owned!!!

[D1B]

Fu*king Owned!!!

Really? There are several hundred thousand sources and studies to counter. Where does this end?

BTW, Here's a disclaimer from one of his sources.:

The materials comprising the Rense.com news service (the "Website") are provided by Rense.com as a service to its readers on an "as-is, as-available" basis for informational purposes only. Rense.com assumes no responsibility for any errors or omissions in these materials. Rense.com makes no commitment to update the information contained herein. Further, Rense.com cannot edit, control, review for truth or accuracy, or screen for defamation or obscenity any content provided to the Website by a third party through postings, uploaded files, or any other form of communication, nor can the Rense.com ensure prompt removal of defamatory, obscene, inappropriate or unlawful content after transmission. Any such third party postings, files or other communications do not necessarily represent the opinions, beliefs, or positions of the Rense.com, its owner, employees or sponsors.

You either accept guns are dangerous, especially in an increasingly violent and polarized nation in decline or you don't and simply believe what the NRA and the republican party tells you.