The Great Gun Control Debate

[redleafjumper]

If you want to know about police procedure - ask a police officer.  If you want to know about the law - ask a lawyer

Absolutely true.  So many people fall for false authority syndrome and believe the person just because they are in a position of authority, even when they are wrong or bluffing.

+1

Cheers

 

[Inch]

Shared with all the usual caveats, bold emphasis is mine.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/orl-miket0407oct04,0,3733024.column?coll=orl_news_util

Gun control doesn't protect us -- guns do
Mike Thomas | COMMENTARY
October 4, 2007

Tiffany Barwick and Michael Ruschak asked the cops to protect them from Barwick's former boyfriend.

She told them he had harassed her, threatened to kill her, bought a gun and sent an image of her riddled with bullet holes.

A Seminole deputy advised her to get a protective court order. We all know how effective they are against the criminally obsessed.

The deputy also would send her complaint to the State Attorney's Office, which is akin to tossing it into the Grand Canyon.

There is a lesson in all this.

The cops can't protect you.

The cops could not protect Erin Belanger and her five friends who were beaten to death by Troy Victorino and his band of thugs in Deltona.

She begged police for help in the days leading up to the assault.

"Can I ask you a question?" she said to a 911 dispatcher. "What can I do?"

Or better yet, what could they do?

Nothing.

I am not knocking the cops, just acknowledging reality. There are a thousand threats in the Big City. Picking out the real ones from the bluster is an impossible task.

Given this reality, given that Central Florida is turning into a bad Mad Max sequel, my liberal belief in gun control is getting wobbly.

I'm not advocating selling machine guns and cop-killer bullets at Wal-Mart. But if somebody faces an immediate threat, I have a hard time understanding why they need to wait three days or longer to buy a handgun for self-protection.

Shouldn't we be allowed to go to a reputable gun store, get a lesson in how to use a specific weapon and buy it after the background check?

The stated reason against this is that some ill-tempered lout will blow a fuse, run off to Guns R Us, buy a Glock and open fire on his spouse, neighbor, boss or co-worker.

One might assume someone this prone to venting with a volley already has a gun, locked and loaded.

A 2000 report in the Journal of the American Medical Association, hardly part of the gun lobby, showed cooling-off periods did not reduce homicide rates or overall suicide rates.

After examining 51 studies on various gun-control laws, including mandatory waiting periods, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention concluded in 2003 that there was "insufficient evidence" to say they reduced gun violence.

It seems we pass laws that feel good without a lot of proof they are doing any good.

Maybe I need a good slap from Ted Kennedy, but I almost buy the National Rifle Association argument that the primary target of gun-control laws would be the people who shoot them at ranges, then lovingly oil and ogle them before safely locking them up.

As far as keeping guns away from bad guys, gun-control laws work as well as crack cocaine-control laws. My footnoted reference on this would be our crime blog.

We even have high school kids in Orange County firing guns in the air at high school athletic events.

If there were no guns, I would say allow no guns. But since all the wrong people already have them, and the cops can't do much about it except match their firepower, then it may well be time to arm thyself, citizen.

When Florida liberalized permits for concealed weapons in the 1980s, critics predicted a Wild West bloodbath. It never happened.

Responsible gun owners don't use guns irresponsibly. Go figure.

Until the cops get better at enforcing gun control on those who shouldn't have guns, a better alternative for the rest of us is gun education, gun classes and secure gun storage.

Mike Thomas can be reached at 407-420-5525 or mthomas@orlandosentinel.com. His blog is OrlandoSentinel.com/mikethomas.

more in /news

Copyright © 2007, Orlando Sentinel

 

[Fishbone Jones]

my father says this never happened when he went to school and they used to bring their .22s for after class hunting...

We already have a gun debate thread. However, I have to wonder, if more people still brought their guns to school, if this would still be happening. Schools, being 'gun free zones' is a big reason why these nut jobs choose to go in shooting. No resistance and no means of stopping them.

 

[Shamrock]

We already have a gun debate thread. However, I have to wonder, if more people still brought their guns to school, if this would still be happening. Schools, being 'gun free zones' is a big reason why these nut jobs choose to go in shooting. No resistance and no means of stopping them.

As in, everybody brings a firearm or only select staff & faculty?

Personally, I don't think more guns would be the solution.  Less guns isn't working either.  Hell, I don't even think guns are the problem -- they're just the means. Why not invest money into determining the source of the problem & rectifying it and teaching children appropriate means of conflict management?

 

[1feral1]

Heard this here too, but where did the gun come from? If it belongs to a parent, what about safe storage? US laws differ from Canada's and Australia's.

However, if a parent keeps a gun insecure, and ammo near by, and the kids takes it, they are just as guilty as the kid who pulled the trigger.

Commonsense, its obvious we all don't have it.

I will wait until the dust settles on this before making further comment.


Wes

 

[Fishbone Jones]

As in, everybody brings a firearm or only select staff & faculty?

Personally, I don't think more guns would be the solution.  Less guns isn't working either.  Hell, I don't even think guns are the problem -- they're just the means. Why not invest money into determining the source of the problem & rectifying it and teaching children appropriate means of conflict management?

Anyone properly qualified should be allowed to carry. The CCRF permits self defense and security of person.

Conflict management when dealing with an armed, deranged perp, is two to the chest and one to the head, not hiding under a desk waiting to die.

 

[Shamrock]

Anyone properly qualified should be allowed to carry. The CCRF permits self defense and security of person.

Conflict management when dealing with an armed, deranged perp, is two to the chest and one to the head, not hiding under a desk waiting to die.

Given the students are the ones most commonly bringing the weapons in, wouldn't it make sense to teach them conflict management and alternative dispute resolution instead?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Given the students are the ones most commonly bringing the weapons in, wouldn't it make sense to teach them conflict management and alternative dispute resolution instead?

Why not do both? Nothing wrong with a backup plan when things go south. Anyone that has taken conflict management and dispute resolution, knows it doesn't always work, sometimes you need a brick.

 

[Shamrock]

Why not do both? Nothing wrong with a backup plan when things go south. Anyone that has taken conflict management and dispute resolution, knows it doesn't always work, sometimes you need a brick.

The vast majority of students and citizens seem very well equipped to deal with conflict at various levels and where appropriate, seek alternative resolutions.  It's the very rare case that will bypass resolution and go right for brick.  I think what I said earlier was wrong -- spending money on an already functional system would just be a waste of money.

Back to arming schools.  Assuming money and resources were made available to properly arm and certify enough staff & faculty, I suspect there would still be a personnel problem.  Getting that many teachers to the level of proficiency and competency would become a nightmare.  Certainly, not every teacher would be required to carry, but could you imagine the union grievances because Mr. Bloggins failed his PWT because the school board counted 5/5 rounds for his grouping?

I've got no problems with armed security or police roaming the halls of schools -- I just think it's ridiculous to arm the teachers, janitors, and xerox repairman.  The high school I went to had a police officer on duty at the school during school hours -- and this was well before Columbine and in a town with a population of less than 4,000.

Here is an article on the "Broken Windows" approach to crime prevention.  While it may not apply directly to the case at hand, it can help offer some insight.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

OK, read what I said. 'Properly qualified', and we're not talking about designating specific people, or making it a prerequisite of the job, or forcing teachers or janitors, or anyone else to carry. That is Wendy Cukier scare tactics, and should be beneath anyone that wants to give solid debate to the subject..

Anyone that wants the training, can pass the testing, can pass the background checks, and is willing to accept the responsibility, should be allowed to carry.

It's obvious the government and police cannot protect you. Therefore, a person should be able to invoke their Charter rights, and protect themselves.

 

[Shamrock]

That is Wendy Cukier scare tactics, and should be beneath anyone that wants to give solid debate to the subject..

How can what I said be even remotely considered a scare tactic? 

 

[Fishbone Jones]

How can what I said be even remotely considered a scare tactic? 

By implying that people that do not want the responsibility are going to be saddled with the job. You're creating the straw man argument that training all those teachers and getting all the union grievances would create a nightmare.

Back to arming schools.  Assuming money and resources were made available to properly arm and certify enough staff & faculty, I suspect there would still be a personnel problem.  Getting that many teachers to the level of proficiency and competency would become a nightmare.  Certainly, not every teacher would be required to carry, but could you imagine the union grievances because Mr. Bloggins failed his PWT because the school board counted 5/5 rounds for his grouping?

Talk like that alarms those not wishing to be involved, and instead of debating the root problem, the discussion gets spun off by the vocal minority, into a problem that never existed. People then get fed up, the problem doesn't get solved and everyone goes away shaking their heads. If you look at Cukier, Brady or any of the other big antis, it's a favourite tactic. Lot's of rhetoric and disinformation resulting in ridiculous rules that only fit into their tiny pigeon hole of utopia.


It was never suggested to mandate staff. That was what you seemed to have proposed with your post. I've said only that people should be allowed to carry, IF THEY WISH, after completeing the requirements.

I'm also not going to rehash all the pros and cons that have been in the last 77 pages, numerous times. They are there for the record and reading.

 

[Shamrock]

By implying that people that do not want the responsibility are going to be saddled with the job.

Hardly.  I was saying, directly and in plain English, that those who wanted the job might not be able to do so and that would just create more heartaches and headaches.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Sure, OK then. However, I must have missed where you said "The people that want the job". Besides at no time did I say it should be part of the job. Any citizen, with the credentials, should be able to carry whenever they wish. That's my point and stand.

I'll leave it go, it's starting to circle.

 

[COBRA-6]

Besides at no time did I say it should be part of the job. Any citizen, with the credentials, should be able to carry whenever they wish.

+1

This has nothing to do with the job, employer, union etc. We're talking about an individual carrying for their own protection if they chose to do so.

BTW I have a Utah CCW as a non-resident alien, but my own country denies me the right to defend myself! Madness!

 

[Fishbone Jones]

BTW I have a Utah CCW as a non-resident alien, but my own country denies me the right to defend myself! Madness!

+1
Utah & New Hampshire for me, Pennsylvania is in the pipe.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Dang I wish I had the extra money when he had come through Vancouver, I had planned on taking the course next year.

 

[COBRA-6]

Utah may stop issuing new permits to non-residents, glad mine is valid for a number of years still!

 

[medaid]

If one can pass the requsite screening for CCW I say let him/her do it. However, I think we will get much resistence from law enforcement as it makes their jobs that m±ch more dangerous. Remember it only takes 1 shot to kill some one with a clean record does not mean they're anything but clean, just means some of them haven't been caught yet.

 

[1feral1]

The state should never have the monopoly on force. I would think the reasons are obvious.

We can always refer to the old saying " I love my country, but don't trust my government".

I believe in that whole heartedly.

Cheers,

Wes

Again EDITed for spelling  :