Forbidding guns does not stop it either, and I dont agree it can escalate the occurrence of violent crime. While it certainly increases the chances of that someone will go crazy, get a gun and start shooting everyone, it certainly also decreases the time until this person is shot down.
If you forbid guns, people will have then ilegally. If you manage to make adquiring guns almost impossible, people will use knives or other white weapons. "Guns dont kill, people kill".
In my book policemen that shoot people first and ask questions later aren't a great improvement from bandits.
As I said just google and then tell me Im wrong, your going on your opinion not the facts. You can run away from a knife but not a gun. Guns are more efficient, if you think knives are just as good as guns why have guns. Any weapons carried by the public are detrimental to all our safety. Just look at the difference between countries that do and dont allow gun ownership.
Its not a matter of shoot, then question, if he is brandishing a weapon that may kill at any moment, then he is warned then shot.
One again the facts dont bare out your argument. Carrying guns does not stop crime, in fact it can escalate the occurrence of violent crime. I dont want to get into statical battles but guns kill Americans in their thousands. Something that does not happen when they are criminalized. Just google deaths by guns in America and compare it to the UK.
Locally we have had youngsters get shot for brandishing an air rifle. It sends a message, no guns in private hands, in public view. Try pointing an umbrella at a policeman , pretending it was a gun. If you intend it to be classified as weapon then thats what it is.
I have also realized that it depends a lot of what we think governments should be like. I think people shouldnt be protected from their own stupidity, and, thus, all countries should allow gun onwership, even if it worsens murder rates. Its a necesssary step towards evolving the culture into something where the government doesnt needs to babysit its people.
Your distorting the statistics by not stating the relevant facts.FIREARMS TUTORIAL
The neighbour is scared by the mere existence of the other, it is this neighbours fault. If we consider that I do not have the right to possess something that may scare those around me, freedom goes out through the window. People may be scared and fake being scared of just anything.
Having a gun and telling someone you will kill then with a gun are totally different things. I think people are biased towards guns, you DO NOT need a gun to kill someone. A kitchen knife is enough. The danger behind assassins is the surprise element, not the firepower they posess.
But then only a few have guns, those few can use then to hold many hostage, or kill many in a short period of time, so perhaps it would be better if many had guns.
You cant be serious about this =)
If you are, well, have fun being shot dead by the police due to a suspicious looking umbrela in a rainy day.
I agree
I dont think that an armed populace can serve as an replacement to the police force, but I dont oppose the idea of letting the populace arm itself.
By the way... this thread has gone waaaaaay off topic =)
Hmm I don't think you fully studied that tutorial either Xris. You know Mexico has one of the strictest gun laws ever. It is a felony to carry just a bullet, you don't even have to have a gun anywhere around, just carrying a bullet on you can end you up in prison. Yet they have one of the highest gun related murder counts. So clearly, imposing restrictions does not make a society safer or free from gun related crimes.
Your distorting the statistics by not stating the relevant facts.FIREARMS TUTORIAL
You might also notice the UK is not mentioned in any of them due to the strict gun control laws. Dont you even see by your own figures Iraq, a war torn country is not exactly a good example.
This idea that the gun is used to protect you from a strangers intention is not just misconception its a damned lie put out by those who maintain this stupid idea it is necessary freedom.
The vast majority of those murdered are killed by close family members. How is your idea of carrying a gun going to protect you from this statistic.
Does the Fed has acces to the server ?:phone:
If you have country bordering another country where guns are freely available then restricting the availability is going to be a problem. Are you seriously telling me that the tutorial or my post had no significant reason for you to reconsider your views? I doubt very much you can change your cultural reliance on guns but surely you can see the futility and the obvious carnage it inflicts on your society. Maybe if every thief i encountered carried a gun i might buy one for protection but its not morally or factually correct to say its right to poses one.
What relevant facts? If you mean that I put forward homicides in general rather than just by guns, then I disagree. Homicides in general IS what matters, because there is no point in not killing someone with a gun if you do so with something else.
It is, actually:
United Kingdom X 5.6 X 1.37
As for Iraq: Ever country has its own specifics, so I decided not to exclude any. Except Yemen because its information about intentional murders is very outdated.
Explain why they would lie, and why exactly its a misconception. How having a gun does nothing to protect you from strangers?
It will not. I dont really want to have a gun myself, but I want people to be free to have it. Its not like the absence of guns would prevent me from being murdered by a family member, anyway.
---------- Post added 02-20-2010 at 03:41 PM ----------
Hum, what? =)
Aka: What are you talking about?
"States that allow registered citizens to carry concealed weapons have lower crime rates than those that don't."
"True. The 31 states that have "shall issue" laws allowing private citizens to carry concealed weapons have, on average, a 24 percent lower violent crime rate, a 19 percent lower murder rate and a 39 percent lower robbery rate than states that forbid concealed weapons. In fact, the nine states with the lowest violent crime rates are all right-to-carry states. Remarkably, guns are used for self-defense more than 2 million times a year, three to five times the estimated number of violent crimes committed with guns."
So Rebecca, what exactly has this guy done wrong? You might not like his antics, but what has he done wrong? Or are you not concerned with what he has done, but instead, what he MIGHT do? Convicting him of something he might do? Just because he might be a nut, doesn't mean he will hurt someone. Does he have the ability to? Yeah, but so does every person on this planet. So if you want to start convicting people of things they "might" do, how about tossing yourself into jail too if you are wanting him to be there. Unless you can actually find something he has done wrong, it is better to not make up a crime where none exists.
But you fail to answer the question about family homicide and the high rates of suicide. Read my link again without your preconceived notion on the value of gun ownership. America has gone beyond the point of return on gun reform , your doomed. More people will die of gun shot in America than any war zone you would like to mention. An American soldier is more likely to get shot at home than in Afghanistan, pretty amazing stuff for a country of the free.
This response to the central question of krumple's post does, at the end, at least does make a point about "tracking", the original subject of this thread.
Question: Would I, as a ranger in a family-friendly state park, who has a primary responsibility of protection and public safety, be concerned about what someone MIGHT do? Of course I would! That's my job.
Now let's re-consider the incident Radnor Lake (RL) Park incident, as it was reported, but let's try to see it through the eyes of the ranger. And this time where there are gaps in the account (what the ranger at the gate actually said when he phoned the chief ranger -- why the chief ranger acted as he did), I'll fill them in with the "most probable scenario" as described by seasoned law enforcement officers on the "gun" forums. The LEOs on the forums seem to be of a consensus, so this may be a useful way to ascertain the ranger's perspective. (The rangers and park personnel cannot give their own public accounts; the Village Idiot has not granted them permission to speak about him, and every indication is that he will not do so.)
Disclaimer: I knew nothing about law enforcement officers when I began reading their analyses, so my attempts to translate their "lingo" into my own understanding could be flawed.
THE INCIDENT STEP BY STEP:
RL park, a well-known nature park located in a residential area of Nashville,TN. High on TN's list of "family friendly places to visit". Biking and hiking trails. Bird-watchers' hangout. Known for excellent "kids learning about nature" programs. Reputation among area residents as an exceptionally safe and well-run park.
You are the chief ranger (CR for short in this post). Typical day, families (with kids), hikers, bikers, tree-huggers, peace seekers, etc. You receive a phone call from the entrance gate ranger (GR). Before he can say much, you hear an upset male voice in the background talking to the GR. The GR reassures this visitor, then tells you it was a male park visitor with his young daughter complaining about a man the GR had just admitted to the park -- and before that, a female visitor had complained about the same man. (my use of "visitor" vs. "man" was simply for the reader's clarification -- all were "visitors" to the park, of course).
GR describes the man as a middle-aged male wearing a Commando style camoflouge outfit, including headband, and carrying an unorthodox, large handgun, which the man had identified to the GR as a non-automatic AK-47 pistol. This pistol, according to the man, falls under the legal guidelines for "handgun" in Tennessee. It appeared to be loaded. The man had shown the GR his handgun carrying permit.
The man has an ammo belt slung over his shoulder and carries the weapon in an oversized Commando type holster (in which the gun rests on one's chest for easy reach). The weapon is presently not fully holstered; it is "out and accessible". The man is moving around the entry area in an attention-drawing manner which could be described as bravado.
GR tells you he was not certain whether or not he took right action in admitting the man to the park, but the man's behavior and attitude was abnormal and confrontational to the extent the GR was concerned that single-handedly challenging the man at the gate might possibly result in an incident involving danger to other park visitors.
So what do you, the CR, think at this moment? According to the forum LEOs, you are not "thinking" in a linear reasoning style as you're running toward the door, rifle in hand -- you've already grasped the essentials of the situation.
The descriptions of these almost-instantaneous evaluations by seasoned LEOs in the field sounded, to me, like a kind of "gestalt". Apparently such evaluations are not only common among LEOs, the ability to quickly grasp and respond appropriately to new and complex situations is a necessary ability if one is to become a competent LEO who takes right, or at least reasonable, action most of the time.
The breakdown of the CR's "field evaluation", as best I could understand, would likely be something similar to this:
1) The importance of time -- get to the scene ASAP
2) Open-carrying an AK-47 type pistol, automatic or not (and at this time you have no way of knowing if it is non-automatic, or exactly what it is) in most public places is "red-flag" behavior for LEOs. The AK-47 pistol is an oversized, attention-drawing, scarey-looking, fast and powerful military style gun. You know of no sensible reason that any person would be open-carrying one in RL Park.
3) The guy carrying the AK, whom we'll nickname "Commando", is a "nut case".
In reading the forums, I've ascertained that the term "nut case" (or any similar term) used by an LEO in a critical situation is not a permanent judgment or field psychological evaluation -- he doesn't have time for that. "Nut case" means that the person is behaving so far outside of normal parameters, you can't predict the limits or nature of his behavior in the immediate future, nor trust that his behavior will not be dangerous to others.
"Commando" as a generic nickname for the man with the gun was my own choosing; I noticed that LEOs in the field apparently employ nicknames which serve as a shorthand to clearly identify what person (or place, object, etc) they are referring to.
4) Is Commando just a show-off, a prankster, or is he about to "go postal"? Who knows? You have no time to speculate on his motivation. You have two primary responsibilities: 1) protect the park visitors from harm until you, or others, ascertain that Commando is not a threat to their safety, and 2) protect Commando from harm.
The reason for putting Commando's safety as secondary would be that he appears to be an intentional instigator in a situation which is un-nerving others around him, and which could be dangerous to others.
5) TIME is an extremely critical element in this situation. You know what an AK-47 type pistol, automatic (god forbid) or not, is capable of. You've been told that he's carrying it "out and accessible". The entry area and parking lot of RL Park is open ground; anyone within sight of Commando could be taken out in a nanno-second should he "go postal".
6) AND there's these new gun laws. Not only is Commando packing, but anyone in the park could be packing. Most gun carriers know their weapons. If they see how this clown is acting and what he's packing, "out and accessible", they'll be un-holstering and cocking their own guns; if they don't, they'd be sitting ducks for Commando. If Commando blinks the wrong way, makes one "wrong" move, they might fire. Average gun owners will perceive, whether it's true or not, that with their "normal" handguns, they can't afford for Commando to even begin an "aim" move with his "super-gun".
7) When you get to Commando, the safest action for all concerned is to approach him with your rifle pointed straight at him -- disarm him and do a swift and sure "felony stop" or "felony take-down". You can't give Commando any opportunity, you can't give anyone watching the perception that he has any opportunity, to do harm. It must be unmistakably clear to Commando and anyone watching that he is completely under your control at all times.
LATER THAT AFTERNOON: Metro Police has just passed the buck back to you. They have ascertained that the handgun is legal. The barrel is 1/2" below maximum length. Now, Commando has painted the tip of the barrel orange, like a toy gun, which arouses even more suspicion about his intentions -- but painting the barrel tip is not illegal.
What do you do now? Well, according to law, you have the legal right to detain Commando until you have been able to check all relevant records, reported to your superior and received direct instructions from your superior. It took quite a while, about 2-1/2 hours, for CR to receive reports from all relevant records and direct instructions from his superior. In fact, it was not too long until park closing time when Commando was released. As soon as he was, most remaining park visitors, after looking at him, quickly left -- even though the watchful presence of park personnel was evident.
Well -- that's an approximate view from the Ranger's position. Did the Ranger have the right to act as he did, or more importantly, did he act rightly?
POST INCIDENT INFORMATION: Commando hasn't shot anyone, but he's been "tracked" buying Class III (apparently "big time") weapons and special adaptors for those weapons. He's bought full body armor. He's been buying toy guns that look like his real ones.
He was stopped by the Belle Meade police (wealthy "old money" suburb of Nashville) while jogging along The Boulevard open carrying another "unorthodox gun", questioned and released.
He gives as many interviews and accounts as media, newspapers and web pages across the country will publish. He recently filed a lawsuit against the chief park ranger, has threatened to sue the Belle Meade Police, editorial journalists and their respective newspapers, even forum owners, anyone whom he feels "libels him" or "deprives him of his rights".
He's been kicked off nearly every major gun forum on the web, a few truck forums, and even two dog forums (one of them about "poodles"??).
Yes, he's been TRACKED all over the place. And he still has his Handgun Carry Permit. Why? Are officials afraid of being sued, like the park ranger? No single action seems to provide a legal basis to pull his permit, however, the accumulation of actions screams "malevolent, possibly dangerous intentions" or "insane", does it not?
The "best" possible analysis, certainly not the only one, would be that he is trying to bait someone, an LEO or common-joe carrying a handgun, into a lawsuit -- but even that involves danger. How can Commando or anyone be certain he won't pull the trigger under ANY circumstances. Is it not wrong to goad innocent person into violent action, then charged that person with a serious crime -- if Commando is even alive to sue?
TRACKING
I just don't get the point of "tracking" this guy from here to Hades if no one has the courage to revoke his gun carrying permit (apparently for fear of a 2nd amendment lawsuit).
Is there ANYONE aware of his story who believes this guy SHOULD be carrying a loaded gun in public? Or do some believe the 2nd Amendment apply to all??
What is the purpose of "tracking" people if not to stop someone like Commando before it's too late. I'm not saying arrest and charge him -- that would be wrong if he hasn't committed a crime -- just pull his handgun carrying permit.
I'm confused -- nothing makes sense anymore.
rebecca
Long, thank you for providing this, but I can't really take it as actual facts in the case. I would have to read the report itself. I know police and security like to exaggerate and sometimes even lie when they know they have done something illegal, to cover their own...
But that aside. I can comment on what you have posted here. I have a few questions for you though. If the context were changed a little, would you still be in favor of banning this guy?
What if he was doing this in a place that wasn't like a park. Maybe an abandoned building where no family friendly environment was. Perhaps on an abandoned industrial pier where no one else is around for miles?
What if he wasn't wearing fatigues?
Would either of these cases change your opinion of him if the story would have taken place in this location or minor changes in the details?
I wait your response to these questions. However; I do want to do some assuming here. I bet you will say it makes no difference where he was. But if that is the case, you can not argue that he was scaring people. Because if you remove him from the family friendly environment, who would he be scaring? So that part of your claim is bogus, you are hiding behind it to defend your anti-gun stance.
That doesn't even take into consideration that you completely avoided my argument that you are convicting him of a crime he has not committed. This is typical, shoot first and ask questions later mentality. I feel that is far more dangerous than a few "nut" cases who do absolutely nothing. When cops accidentally kill someone they lie all the time and try to claim the person had a gun or were acting like they were moving to get a gun. There are dozens of cases like that, and it is far too easy for police to use the tactic you are trying to use. "Well we shot and killed him because he was a nut case."
If you are convicting him of a crime, then I am convicting you of treason.
Question back at you: do statements by gun-owners that they would have readied their weapons to prevent any perceived "aim" move by Commando, that a small minority said they would have fired pre-emptively, concern you?
rebecca
You know the list you give is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. I cant really be bothered with gun lobbyist propaganda. I know it, you know it, we all know it. America suffers from its liberal gun laws and your pretence at the ignorance of it, is blatantly obvious.
I will admit the guy was really trying to push some buttons and it seems as though that was his intentions the whole time. I can identify with his tactic but I would have to ask him, what his actual intention for pushing those buttons was. Was he setting a trap on purpose for lawsuit? Knowing that he would not actually step outside the laws themselves but instead wait for someone to violate them?
For me I have a very strong duality as far as firearms goes. On one hand I hate what they represent but on the other hand I completely understand their existence. I grew up around them, so seeing a guy like that actually wouldn't faze me at all. I wouldn't think anything was out of the ordinary. I wouldn't be worried until I actually heard shots or yelling.
But to get back to your question. I would have to say that their response might be more emotional than realistic. I honestly don't see a well trained licensed owner jumping so quickly on the offensive. Maybe that is me being naive, but I personally wouldn't have moved towards the offensive until there was actually a good solid reason to. Like him actually brandishing it and pointing it around or scoping people with it. If he just has it strapped to him it wouldn't matter to me what he was doing.
I actually feel safer around absolute strangers that have guns on them than the average police officer in the city. So many incidents have occurred lately where the officers have either injured or killed innocent people because of mistaken identification or they were in the wrong place.
The thing is, when a citizen harms someone with a gun accidentally, it is a felony, but when an officer harms someone with a gun accidentally they get off without anything. This is sending out the wrong message and it is quite insulting to the common citizen.
About the "Commando" guy: From what I read here, I dont see reasons to consider that he is mentally unstable or murderous, he sounds more like a joker to me. I dont think someone with murderous intentions would dress like a commando... first, because that calls too much attention, like it has already been demonstrated, second, because commandos arent the kind of "character" that go around killing civilians. If he was dressed like a terrorist it would be another story.
I agree with Krumple on that we cant punish people before they commit the crime, that is a serious setback to personal freedom. After all, if the laws allows him to do that, and if he is doing that because he thinks its cool or some other non-violent reason, then being held back everywhere he goes is indeed an attack against his freedom.
Still I don't think Commando should be allowed to keep his gun carrying permit. He's intentionally goading for an incident which nothing good can come from.
Back to the topic of the thread -- the government is, perhaps, less afraid of citizen firearms than of citizen speech, writing, and exchange of information.
Recall Native American activist John Trudell in the 1970's. Per a documentary about him, one FBI memo reportedly said that Trudell was "eloquent, and that makes him dangerous." Trudell, against federal warnings, organized a Native American march in D.C. and gave one of his "eloquent" speeches on (if my memory is correct) the steps of the Capitol. Less than 12 hours later, Trudell's wife, mother-in-law and three young children (ages 2,3 and 5, I think) perished in a house fire "of suspicious origin". Now THAT should scare all of us.
Perhaps it's inappropriate to ask this, and inappropriate for anyone to answer, but I will exercise my option of free speech and ask, anyway: has anyone here had reason to believe he/she was ever on an internet or any kind of government "watch" list?
Still I don't think Commando should be allowed to keep his gun carrying permit. He's intentionally goading for an incident which nothing good can come from.
Back to the topic of the thread -- the government is, perhaps, less afraid of citizen firearms than of citizen speech, writing, and exchange of information.
