ABC 20/20 claims concealed carry does not prevent gun crime

[KeepOnTruckin]

http://www.abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=7298996

Heres a quote from the article:
"If you have this guy ... that just comes into a classroom, puts a gun to your head and pulls the trigger while you are talking to someone else, well, you know what? There is nothing you could do," he said. "But there were people that survived: the ones that played dead. The ones that, you know, went through a window. The ones that hid behind a desk. The ones that got on the phone and called in 911. When they do a post interview of all these different people, you'll see a, a general commonality: 'I knew I had to live.'"

And remember that cell phone in your pocket? It might be the best weapon you have for survival.

"Get on the cell phone, tell people, barricade these doors, and wait it out," said Stanton. "


I'll be sure to do that when some dude's robbing my house.

Of course the media is biased, so what do we expect

[Mullen]

I don't think there are enough people carrying concealed weapons to defer criminals.

If your were toting a .45 around on your hip, I doubt those little street thugs would value your wallet so highly.

[DJ Meaty Cheeks]

It needs to be open carry not concealed carry. You're def not gonna rob a guy with a Kalashnikov in his hand now are you?

[Fish]

Sometimes, the problem is that the person with the CC gun doesn't know how to use it, or it gets taken and then used on them. In fact, this has also been known to happen with Mace and tazers. A gun is useless if you can't use it, or if you aren't able to keep it in your possession.

On the flipside, there's also plenty of people that can use guns, and that use them for self-defense without getting themselves killed...

I guess it's a matter of which statistics you choose to interpret.

[Rocko]

Concealed carry doesn't prevent shit if they don't know the gun is there. What it DOES do is:

-Give the criminal a weapon if he doesn't already have one.

-Allow someone to blow the criminal's brains out.

[13579]

As long as the person knows how to use the damn thing, it helps.

Fuck, last thing I'd want is a damn phone when I'm getting shot at.

[xilikeeggs0]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles...fire_commences

What kept Charles Whitman from killing hundreds of people at UTA? People who had their own guns.

Once Whitman began facing return gunfire from the authorities and civilians who had brought out their personal firearms to assist police, he used the waterspouts on each side of the tower as gun ports, allowing him to continue shooting largely protected from the gunfire below but also greatly limiting his range of targets.

Imagine what could have happened at Virginia Tech if even one of the students had had a gun on them.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2217853/posts

[Struwwelpeter]

Ilikeeggs, it's really sad they let people like you in the military, women that is, what do you think the poor little Texans were going to do, snipe Charles from hundreds of feet below him through several inches of concrete with a concealed carry size handgun? What has the world come to when people like ilikeggs parents have had children.

Note that I'm not arguing for gun control in this thread.

[xilikeeggs0]

Originally Posted by Jim "fuck latinos" Carrey

Ilikeeggs, it's really sad they let people like you in the military, women that is, what do you think the poor little Texans were going to do, snipe Charles from hundreds of feet below him through several inches of concrete with a concealed carry size handgun? What has the world come to when people like ilikeggs parents have had children.

Note that I'm not arguing for gun control in this thread.

They didn't snipe him, and didn't need to. What they did was keep his down and prevent him from killing hundreds of people so the police could get to him and kill him.

edit: Look at the second link in my other post.

edit #2: Although I do agree with this part of the original article:

Opponents say that if guns are allowed on campus, students and faculty will live in fear of classmates and colleagues, not knowing who might pull a gun over a drunken dorm argument or a poor grade.

There are a lot of idiots at my old school, and there's one guy especially who would be the first one to get a concealed carry license, but he would be the last one that I would trust with one.

edit #3: And since you're such an expert on the military, you should know that one of the basic maneuvers in the army is a bold flanking movement in which one team lays down suppressive fire to keep the enemy's heads down while the other team flanks and follows through on the attack. How is that any different than what happened there?

[Syphilis]

Maybe if every single person in America didn't have a gun, there would be less shooting deaths. Just maybe.

I fail to see why an assault rifle is needed for "home defense".

[xilikeeggs0]

Originally Posted by Syphilis

Maybe if every single person in America didn't have a gun, there would be less shooting deaths. Just maybe.

I fail to see why an assault rifle is needed for "home defense".

And there would be more crime. Outlawing guns just takes them away from the people who need them the most. Do you really think criminals are going to turn in their guns if they get banned? No, it's just going to put all of the power into their hands, because they know that they can break into any house they want to without having to worry about getting shot.

But yea, there are some guns that regular people just don't need to have.

[Syphilis]

Originally Posted by xilikeeggs0

And there would be more crime. Outlawing guns just takes them away from the people who need them the most. Do you really think criminals are going to turn in their guns if they get banned? No, it's just going to put all of the power into their hands, because they know that they can break into any house they want to without having to worry about getting shot.

It didn't work out too bad for Australia, the UK, every other country.

If there are far less guns, there will be less gun crime. People will have to fight it out with knives like real men.

Only the toughest criminals and organised crime have guns in most countries.

Of course, it would be hard to do this in the US, since there are already so many guns already, so it's kind of a catch-22 situation.

There is a slight truth to needing a weapon in the US, because any dumbass criminal from the ghetto can get their hands on a gun. Self defense. This will remain true until the amount of guns in circulation is cut down, but that won't happen, because at the moment people have the guns to keep themselves safe.

A good start would be for all automatic weapons and anything with a caliber greater than 9mm to be banned. They just aren't needed.

(I've edited this post a few times, so my thoughts are probably a bit jumbled up.)

[xilikeeggs0]

Originally Posted by Syphilis

It didn't work out too bad for Australia, the UK, every other country.

If there are far less guns, there will be less gun crime. People will have to fight it out with knives like real men.

Only the toughest criminals and organised crime have guns in most countries.

Of course, it would be hard to do this in the US, since there are already so many guns already, so it's kind of a catch-22 situation.

Yea, it would be pretty much impossible to do in the US. There's already a shitload of illegal guns, and I know people who would literally shoot anybody who tried to come take their guns away if it ever came to that.

[13579]

Originally Posted by Syphilis

It didn't work out too bad for Australia, the UK, every other country.

Actually, it did turn out bad.

Will somebody dig up the statistics where it was shown crime actually went up as a result of these bans?

[Syphilis]

Originally Posted by 13579

Actually, it did turn out bad.

Will somebody dig up the statistics where it was shown crime actually went up as a result of these bans?

My point is that the US has a far higher incidence of gun related deaths than any other country.

[xilikeeggs0]

Originally Posted by Syphilis

My point is that the US has a far higher incidence of gun related deaths than any other country.

I bet countries that have gun bans have a much higher incidence of knife-related deaths, though.

Oh, and http://www.zoklet.net/bbs/showthread...145#post366145

[Syphilis]

Originally Posted by ilovesawedoffpump

You jews and commies dont actually believe this shit so I'm not really talking to you. But for other people, who need arguments against these assholes. What cities have the highest crime rates? Detroit, Baltimore, and Chicago (which has really strict gun laws).

So, I say lets ban niggers

But they don't have the highest gun related death rates.

Which is the point.

Less guns, less chance of getting shot.

I think I'll stop posting in this thread since it's pretty much impossible to separate Americans from their guns.

[Random_Looney]

Originally Posted by Syphilis

Maybe if every single person in America didn't have a gun, there would be less shooting deaths. Just maybe.

I fail to see why an assault rifle is needed for "home defense".

1. That is an impossibility. Illegal guns are still in countries that have tried to limit them.

2. Even if we were to assume that there were no guns, magically, that means nothing about crime in general. Scotland is the world's most dangerous country (ranked by the UN). Not many firearms. This also means that the very young, very old, weak, outnumbered, and women are at a statistical disadvantage in a confrontation.

3. Do you even know what an assault rifle is? Hardly any Americans have them. They are extremely difficult to acquire.

So, basically you're fixating on guns and shootings and ignoring actual crime rates and violent crime? Wow, okay. Go you.

[Random_Looney]

Originally Posted by xilikeeggs0

But yea, there are some guns that regular people just don't need to have.

Most people probably don't "need" firearms. You probably don't "need" a car. Small arms are Constitutionally protected. Destructive devices and "ordinance" are not protected. Claiming any lack of necessity for firearms shows a misunderstanding of the Second Amendment if you're talking about ABC and the US.

[bobapanbeers]

Originally Posted by Alpheus

It needs to be open carry not concealed carry. You're def not gonna rob a guy with a Kalashnikov in his hand now are you?

This might surprise you but I don't see myself going to work or walking down the street with my laptop bag AND an AK74 in my hands...

[Mantikore]

Originally Posted by Syphilis

It didn't work out too bad for Australia, the UK, every other country.

i do beg to differ. i find the number of violent crimes here to have remained about the same.

However, i do think the presence of guns at all will not increase crime. Take a look at Switzerland for example. The gun culture there is huge, and the government subsidises some ammunition. However, the crime there is relatively small.

But i think were missing the point here. Long arms are not just for the purpose of self defense, but also for hunting and the balance of power with the government

[reject]

I think anybody from any civilised country could tell you that arming the general population doesn't prevent gun crime.

[reject]

Originally Posted by Mantikore

i do beg to differ. i find the number of violent crimes here to have remained about the same.

Violent crimes don't have to involve firearms.

For example there's a helluva lot of violent crime in the UK, but it's mostly with knives, bats, various other weapons or general beatings with fists, a very small amount of violent crime is done with guns.

Now if you made it easy for everyone to get a gun, then those people will use guns instead of knives, guns instead of bats, so the death rate from violent crime would go up.

Thus banning guns, specifically hand guns, is a very good idea.

[Bender]

I watched that special. And they did a wide test on people who either never picked up a gun to those who had over 100 hours of shooting. And everywhere in between. They couldn't get it out fast enough and got caught in there clothes. It was major failure. Just providing more ammo to the shooter.

[5.56 SS109]

Originally Posted by Syphilis

Maybe if every single person in America didn't have a gun, there would be less shooting deaths. Just maybe.

I fail to see why an assault rifle is needed for "home defense".

Very few people in America own assault rifles.

And, there are absolutely NO documented incidences where a civilian who owns an assault rifle has shot anyone with it.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by 5.56 SS109

And, there are absolutely NO documented incidences where a civilian who owns an assault rifle has shot anyone with it.

Does this count?

[Random_Looney]

Originally Posted by Fish

Does this count?

No. That has nothing to do with assault rifles, my good man. Assault rifles are select fire or automatic weapons.

"Assault weapons" are normal semi-automatic firearms with scary cosmetic features. They are also used in less than 11% of crimes involving firearms, if I remember correctly, as per NIJ studies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjM9fcEzSJ0

[Fish]

Originally Posted by Random_Looney

No. That has nothing to do with assault rifles, my good man. Assault rifles are select fire or automatic weapons.

Like an AK-47 type assault rifle? The one mentioned in the article?

[Random_Looney]

Originally Posted by reject

I think anybody from any civilised country could tell you that arming the general population doesn't prevent gun crime.

There is obviously no causal relationship between firearms and gun crime. You're a moron as proven elsewhere, so I don't expect you to understand the difference between capability and necessity, but look at Switzerland. Look at Kennesaw, GA. Lots of guns. Legally mandated firearm ownership.

Low gun crime.

No one intelligent is saying more guns=more crime (gun crime or general crime). No one intelligent is saying more guns=less crime.

There is no proven causal relationship, despite the 1992 FBI crime reports finding that states with looser gun laws having lower overall violent crime rates.

[Random_Looney]

Originally Posted by Fish

Like an AK-47 type assault rifle? The one mentioned in the article?

No. Assault rifles are automatic weapons. Look at the youtube video. Semi-automatic weapons are what your article is talking about.

One bullet per trigger pull. Just because they cosmetically appear similar to AK-47's is why they are "assault weapons."

Edit- even though I do see why you would think the mistaken article's phrasing (from an ignorant reporter) would have you believe that an automatic weapon was used. It simply is not the case.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by Random_Looney

No. Assault rifles are automatic weapons. Look at the youtube video. Semi-automatic weapons are what your article is talking about.

One bullet per trigger pull. Just because they cosmetically appear similar to AK-47's is why they are "assault weapons."

Edit- even though I do see why you would think the mistaken article's phrasing (from an ignorant reporter) would have you believe that an automatic weapon was used. It simply is not the case.

An AK-47 is fully automatic. What does the article say that leads you to believe that it wasn't really an AK-47 that was used?

[Random_Looney]

Originally Posted by Fish

An AK-47 is fully automatic. What does the article say that leads you to believe that it wasn't really an AK-47 that was used?

Not necessarily. There are plenty of semi-automatic AK-47's out and about. I have a few myself. It's like the AR-15 compared to an M-16. I have several AR-15 rifles, and no M-16's.

Nothing in the article makes me believe that an automatic weapon wasn't used, except for them crowing about the Assault Weapons Ban. Assault Rifles are already controlled by the Gun Control Act of 1986, and the Assault Weapons Ban has nothing to do with assault rifles.

Just look at the phrasing. AK-47 type rifle. Not AK-47.

However, reading other news articles (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...fyXkAD97GCLGO0)

and the complete lack of mention of automatic weaponry (which is extremely difficult to get, and no citizens are allowed post-1986 manufactured machineguns, driving the price up due to supply and demand) in other sources makes it pretty obvious to me.

Considering how absurdly rare real assault rifles are in private hands, you'd hear about this on every TV station for months if it were an assault rifle and not an assault weapon. I could get the department to send me a letter detailing that a semi-automatic rifle was used if you felt like waiting for the mail : -).

[Fish]

Originally Posted by Random_Looney

I could get the department to send me a letter detailing that a semi-automatic rifle was used if you felt like waiting for the mail : -).

Don't be ridiculous. I was merely responding to the claim that there are zero deaths in America at the hands of assault rifles. I'm not a gun expert, nor do I know whether or not Syphilis's original comment was intentionally specific about assault rifles as opposed to assault weapons or something else, but the point I was trying to make is that there are plenty of crimes committed with illegal weapons in America. The fact that we can arguing the semantics of "assault rifles" vs. "assault weapons" doesn't change the fact that if a criminal in America wants a gun, it's not like "laws" are going to stop him.

[Random_Looney]

Originally Posted by Fish

Don't be ridiculous. I was merely responding to the claim that there are zero deaths in America at the hands of assault rifles. I'm not a gun expert, nor do I know whether or not Syphilis's original comment was intentionally specific about assault rifles as opposed to assault weapons or something else, but the point I was trying to make is that there are plenty of crimes committed with illegal weapons in America. The fact that we can arguing the semantics of "assault rifles" vs. "assault weapons" doesn't change the fact that if a criminal in America wants a gun, it's not like "laws" are going to stop him.

I'm just messing with you. And I'm not being ridiculous. It would be ridiculously easy for me to get the specifics.

The issue is not a semantical issue. Please just watch the video. The weapons used in the article are plenty legal... for a law-abiding citizen. The acts of murder are illegal.

5.56's point still stands. Legal assault rifles have only killed people in the hands of police and mobsters, on record, in America.

Assault Weapons are used in a minority of all crimes, per FBI/NIJ crime statistics.

When someone ends up arguing, like the article posted, about something other than what they wish to (not saying what they mean), it's a big deal. It would be akin to me saying alcohol causes blindness when ingested. Methanol, yes. Ethanol, no. I'm not even sure about Butanol, etc.

[xilikeeggs0]

Originally Posted by Fish

Does this count?

No, because:

Lovelle Mixon, a convicted felon jailed for five years for assault with a firearm, shot the first two officers with the handgun he was carrying (illegally) after the police stopped his car for a traffic violation. He then used an AK-47 type assault rifle to gun down two SWAT officers before he was killed in a shootout. True, California has an assault-weapons ban and it didn't keep the rifle out of Mixon's hands, but a federal ban could only strengthen local enforcement efforts.

Your article just proved my point. Banning guns doesn't take them out of the criminals' hands, it takes them out of the hands of the people who could use them to defend themselves.

He was a convicted felon, so he couldn't have legally gotten any kind of gun.

[Random_Looney]

Excellent point.

Besides, it wasn't an assault rifle. It's ridiculous to say it takes a gun expert to figure the difference between a machinegun and a rifle.

I even posted a video for those of us who are not hoplophillic.

Edit- but I do respect Fish. Normally we seem to agree.

[ArmsMerchant]

Originally Posted by Alpheus

It needs to be open carry not concealed carry. You're def not gonna rob a guy with a Kalashnikov in his hand now are you?

^Yeah, what he said.

Carrying openly (a .44 magnumRuger Super Blackhawk in a western-style fast-draw rig, BTW) has kept me from being robbed twice, that I know of.

[Irukanji]

Originally Posted by Syphilis

It didn't work out too bad for Australia, the UK, every other country.

Sure, but now they just jump the counter with a baseball bat/axe/machete and kill the guy instead of just threatening. And we have the "dole", where people basically sit on their ass and get money. Not like welfare in the usa which lasts for 6 months.

Instead of robbing the rich guy with a gun, they start bashing old women who almost always have money, women with children, etc. Guns just make it easier. Just ban niggers and we'll be perfectly safe.

[ArmsMerchant]

^In the US, welfare can last for years--depends on the state, and how old your kids are.

Able-bodied adults--as a rule--don't get welfare at all--unless they are rich CEOS who ruined their companies--then they get billions.

[Euda]

Guns simply make it too easy for men, women, and children to wound or kill people.

Hiding the possession of a gun does not make it any harder to would or kill. In fact, it gives people an excuse to act in ways that they wouldn't otherwise act. I haven't found any reason to support gun ownership, without the specific purpose of hunting animals for food.