Starbucks caught in Crossfire between Anti/Pro-Gun sides

[Bayou Bum]

There's no guarantee of safety even with trained people openly carrying guns, as four cops in Seattle found out.

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/78088192.html

No accounting for crazy.

Of course there are stories of guns used to kill people. But Clemmons was a convicted felon and it was illegal for him to have a gun, which didn't stop him. Criminals will still have guns and use them. But when law abiding citizens are allowed to carry, crime rates drop. After Kennesaw, GA passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one firearm in the house, the residential burglary rate subsequently dropped 89%. In Florida, more people are killed by alligators than by people with carry permits.

Cops do sometimes shoot the good guys,as Tony Arambula in Phoenix found out.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/phoenix-fam...ory?id=8756441

They shot him a lot.

Maybe the police shouldn't be allowed to carry? I've seen statistics that you are 3 times more likely to be shot by a police officer accidentally than by a citizen with a carry permit.

An oldie, in 1990, a detective responding to a burglarly call was shot at by a homeowner. He was in plain clothes, but still, mistaken identity.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?ni...g=5578,3186357

As far as Starbucks goes, isn't it a property rights issue?

But this is a fencing board, and I think that really what we should be debating is the open carry of swords.

But I guess that whole Montague and Capulet thing has just filled people full of fear of men in doublets and tights.

Obviously the owner wasn't trained in the proper handling of a weapon. I've also seen kids pick up epees at a school fencing club and start swinging it around and poking other kids without proper safety equipment

The following article has some good facts in it; such as the part about the UK passing one of the strictest gun-control laws in the world and gun-related crimes nearly doubling.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3083618&page=1

[Bayou Bum]

Thank you for a reasonable reply.

To all those who claim I've done nothing to support my argument, I have repeatedly linked statistics that support my position. They are as reasonable as any you have shown to support yours. And yet you can't even admit to the possibility of my position; you have absolutely no interest in truly examining the issue.

We live in the most violent society in the developed world with more of our people in prison, and more gun deaths than anywhere else. And the answer? More guns.

Once again with false facts. Total crimes in the UK, with the strictest gun controls, are higher than the US. Are they not developed?

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...mes-per-capita

[telkanuru]

Once again with false facts. Total crimes in the UK, with the strictest gun controls, are higher than the US.

False facts? Apparently you can't even correctly read your own source. Way to go.

[Bayou Bum]

False facts? Apparently you can't even correctly read your own source. Way to go.

Yes. Don't just be a troll, post something useful.

[telkanuru]

Yes. Don't just be a troll, post something useful.

How about "read the articles you post before you say they back you up"? Is that useful?

[BenTheEMOP]

Once again with false facts. Total crimes in the UK, with the strictest gun controls, are higher than the US. Are they not developed?

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...mes-per-capita

Here is the Murder with Firearms Stats from the same page:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...-with-firearms

US is number four, just behind Thailand. UK is tied for 39.

Do you have any numbers on where criminals get their guns? My understanding is mostof them steal them from legal gun owners.

Incidentally, whether the shooter in Seattle had a legal gun or not was not the point. The point is even with open carry, police officers couldn't protect themselves from a criminal.

Some of the best trained people in the world were not able to prevent John Hinckley Jr. from getting off his shots at Reagan (and of course Brady), or Gerald Ford (imagine if Squeaky Fromme has had more practice), so why do people think that a couple hours at the range and a seminar will make them into crime fighters?

I don't really have a problem with gun ownership, and not a ton of problems with people carrying guns.

I do worry about the guys who are so nervous about their day to day lives that they feel the need to carry guns wherever they go. This country is just not that dangerous.

More than the scared guys though, I worry about the ones who are on the look out to be heroes. They seem like they might be more hair trigger.

In the end, civilian tough-guy stuff just doesn't count. If you are that worried about crime, join the police or FBI and do something about it is my thinking.

If you are just a gun enthusiast and shooting sports guy, then just say that and I think people would be more accepting of it. Why does it always have to be "I carry my gun so I can save the day!"?

[keith]

Why does it always have to be "I carry my gun so I can save the day!"?

Well if it's not that then you have to deal with the possibility that guns are just like stamps or model train sets.

[telkanuru]

Well if it's not that then you have to deal with the possibility that guns are just like stamps or model train sets.

Can I see statistics on model train murders per capita?

[fencerchica]

If you are just a gun enthusiast and shooting sports guy, then just say that and I think people would be more accepting of it. Why does it always have to be "I carry my gun so I can save the day!"?

QFT, at least certainly for my experience as a regular urban/suburban dweller. I suppose your mileage might vary if you lived off the grid in an extremely rural setting -- but most folks don't.

[keith]

Can I see statistics on model train murders per capita?

Which gauge?

[fencerchica]

Can I see statistics on model train murders per capita?

How about motorcycle-related fatalities? I def. support regulatory-oriented rules such as requiring helmets for motorcyclists or having stringent requirements for concealed carry (or banning it altogether in favor of open carry -- I think people have a right to carry weapons in most places, but the flip side is that others have a right to know they're carrying), etc. But I don't think that an item being potentially dangerous should be used as an argument for zero tolerance of it (if that is what you were suggesting, which it might not have been).

[Bayou Bum]

Here is the Murder with Firearms Stats from the same page:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...-with-firearms

US is number four, just behind Thailand. UK is tied for 39.

Do you have any numbers on where criminals get their guns? My understanding is mostof them steal them from legal gun owners.

Incidentally, whether the shooter in Seattle had a legal gun or not was not the point. The point is even with open carry, police officers couldn't protect themselves from a criminal.

So there is no point to oppose open carry. We should just outlaw the shooting of police officers!

Some of the best trained people in the world were not able to prevent John Hinckley Jr. from getting off his shots at Reagan (and of course Brady), or Gerald Ford (imagine if Squeaky Fromme has had more practice), so why do people think that a couple hours at the range and a seminar will make them into crime fighters?

I don't really have a problem with gun ownership, and not a ton of problems with people carrying guns.

I do worry about the guys who are so nervous about their day to day lives that they feel the need to carry guns wherever they go. This country is just not that dangerous.

More than the scared guys though, I worry about the ones who are on the look out to be heroes. They seem like they might be more hair trigger.

In the end, civilian tough-guy stuff just doesn't count. If you are that worried about crime, join the police or FBI and do something about it is my thinking.

If you are just a gun enthusiast and shooting sports guy, then just say that and I think people would be more accepting of it. Why does it always have to be "I carry my gun so I can save the day!"?

I don't hear people say they carry a gun so they can save the day. They usually carry a gun for personal defense, and a gun does increase your odds of surviving a crime.

I see you like to point out just murders with firearms, but at least you should have used the results on a per capita basis. And you should look at total murder rates. If a gun isn't available, other weapons are always available to accomplish the task. Murder has been around a lot longer than firearms.

If you were crossing the street, I wonder which would cause you greater concern, a person openly carrying or a drunk driver coming down the road?

[keith]

I see you like to point out just murders with firearms, but at least you should have used the results on a per capita basis. And you should look at total murder rates. If a gun isn't available, other weapons are always available to accomplish the task. Murder has been around a lot longer than firearms.

Whose point are you trying to make?

per capita murder rates;

UK 0.0140633 per 1000
US 0.042802 per 1,000
Switzerland 0.00921351 per 1,000*


*which once again proves it's not guns that kill people, it's americans with guns that kill people.

[telkanuru]

I don't hear people say they carry a gun so they can save the day. They usually carry a gun for personal defense, and a gun does increase your odds of surviving a crime.

No it doesn't.

[melensdad]

No it doesn't.

Please cite your evidence.

[telkanuru]

Please cite your evidence.

I'm sorry, you seem to have forgotten how a debate works.

Refresher course.

[keith]

Please cite your evidence.

That Brits are both less likely to own guns and be murdered?

Damn that oppression.

[erooMynohtnA]

I don't hear people say they carry a gun so they can save the day. They usually carry a gun for personal defense, and a gun does increase your odds of surviving a crime.

What if the crime is being killed with your own gun?

[melensdad]

Whose point are you trying to make?

per capita murder rates;

UK 0.0140633 per 1000
US 0.042802 per 1,000
Switzerland 0.00921351 per 1,000*


*which once again proves it's not guns that kill people, it's americans with guns that kill people.

Why do you limit it to MURDER? Why not look at overall crime? Murders occur by many means. Further violent crimes can utilize many different tools like knives, bats and guns.

How about crimes per capita?
UK 85.5517 per 1,000 people
US 80.0645 per 1,000 people

How about crimes PREVENTED by firearms? Have you considered how often those occur? Again, using the data from LOTT and MUSTARD of the University of Chicago, they estimate that up to 2 MILLION times per year guns are used by law abiding citizens to prevent crimes. Most often when guns are used there is no shot fired and no injury to criminal or victim occurs but the crime itself is thwarted.

I think people have a right to carry weapons in most places, but the flip side is that others have a right to know they're carrying

So you then advocate openly carrying guns as the article about Starbucks describes but that the Brady Campaign seems to believe will lead to violence?

[melensdad]

I'm sorry, you seem to have forgotten how a debate works.

Refresher course.

OK so you make claims that have no basis in fact. Then when asked for proof of your lies you cry like a whinny baby.

Here is the proof that proves you lied, enjoy the reading:

... using National Crime Victimization Study data, that victims who have and use guns have both lower losses and lesser injury rates from violent crime.

Oh, and another study showing the same fact:

among robbery victims who used guns, only 17% were injured and only 31% lost property, compared to 25% inury rates and 88% property loss rates among victims who did not resist at all, and 33% injury rates and 65% property loss rates among all robbery victims.