Dutch Mall Massacre lesson

[Paladin]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110409/ap_on_re_eu/eu_netherlands_mall_shooting

As is typical, the shooter goes to a "virtual" gun-free zone where he can kill a bunch of unarmed men, women, and children.

From the linked article:

A man armed with a machine gun opened fire in a crowded shopping mall on Saturday, killing six people and wounding 15, then committed suicide, officials and witnesses said. . . .

Police commissioner Jan Stikvoort denied reports police were slow to respond, saying they arrived while the shooting was ongoing and reached the gunman just as the shooting stopped.

Translation: as is typical, once the coward realizes there's a GG w/a gun coming after him, he commits suicide. Another example of the dangers of "gun-free zones" and the lack of CCWers (GGs w/guns).

[goodlookin1]

Yep, if the gun laws were more friendly, you might have been able to add this to your signature "CCW saving lives" thread. Too bad.

[misterjake]

But to an anti's way of thinking, if guns were banned, he never would have picked up the gun in the 1st place.

They'll ignore any logic and this thought will be burned in their brain.

Nevermind the fact that murder is illegal yet he still committed it, no law will ever stop the lawless.

[Paladin]

Yep, if the gun laws were more friendly, you might have been able to add this to your signature "CCW saving lives" thread. Too bad.

Actually, I can't add any more. I reached the limit for that single post about 6 months ago.

But I may drop off some of the old ones that don't have citations and/or ones involving off-duty LEOs (what I call "virtual CCWers"), to make room for new, true CCW examples w/citations.

I can't wait until we start getting a bunch of examples of CCWers in CA . . . .

[choprzrul]

just have a moderator add another post below the full one.

[lomalinda]

We need to hammer the anti's with statistics showing the increase in home invasions, knifings, and the unabated gun violence taking place in countries such as England that have banned civilian ownership of firearms.

[GettoPhilosopher]

But to an anti's way of thinking, if guns were banned, he never would have picked up the gun in the 1st place.

I wish more people would explore this logic.

Technically, there *is* an argument for a complete ban EVENTUALLY lowering gun availability. There's just too many guns around right now, but *if* you completely banned firearms, and *if* that law ran for, say, 75 years, eventually you would have a country where it's much harder to find guns.

Problem being:
A) The 2A, Heller, McDonald, etc, mean that this can never happen.
B) There are just too many guns in circulation for it to work. 75 years is a rather light estimate.
C) It wouldn't change a thing now.

Same would go for an AW ban. If you completely banned possession or manufacture of anything that isn't a bolt action rifle, eventually it'd be very hard to find anything that isn't a bolt action rifle. It's also legally impossible.

In an odd way, that's one of the biggest arguments against gun control in my mind. If you completely ignore the "should we?" arguments, you get to the cold, logical fact that the Constitution prevents anything close to effective gun control. It just isn't possible, so it's not worth discussing or pursuing.

(this doesn't include the debate over so-called "reasonable restrictions", such as 10day waits, background checks, etc)

[GDM]

I wish more people would explore this logic.

Technically, there *is* an argument for a complete ban EVENTUALLY lowering gun availability. There's just too many guns around right now, but *if* you completely banned firearms, and *if* that law ran for, say, 75 years, eventually you would have a country where it's much harder to find guns.

Problem being:
A) The 2A, Heller, McDonald, etc, mean that this can never happen.
B) There are just too many guns in circulation for it to work. 75 years is a rather light estimate.
C) It wouldn't change a thing now.

Same would go for an AW ban. If you completely banned possession or manufacture of anything that isn't a bolt action rifle, eventually it'd be very hard to find anything that isn't a bolt action rifle. It's also legally impossible.

In an odd way, that's one of the biggest arguments against gun control in my mind. If you completely ignore the "should we?" arguments, you get to the cold, logical fact that the Constitution prevents anything close to effective gun control. It just isn't possible, so it's not worth discussing or pursuing.

(this doesn't include the debate over so-called "reasonable restrictions", such as 10day waits, background checks, etc)

Gun bans don't take into account peoples knowledge. What are they going to do with all those books published for gun-smithing, videos on the net, people with piratical, general knowledge of gun-smithing (or some one in their garage). Sure, you can ban milsurp / commercial guns. But what about Joe Smoe who just reproduced an AK.

If someone knows how to make a weapon from raw materials they will, then you lead to (gasp) thought control.

[CalBear]

Technically, there *is* an argument for a complete ban EVENTUALLY lowering gun availability. There's just too many guns around right now, but *if* you completely banned firearms, and *if* that law ran for, say, 75 years, eventually you would have a country where it's much harder to find guns.

I've thought about this before as well. IMO, gun bans are predicated around 2 ideas: 1) banning guns will reduce the availability of guns for bad people and 2) reducing the availability of guns reduces crime.

I question both of these presumptions. I think black markets have always been extremely pervasive globally. I think something so common as a firearm will always be available at the right price. We've banned most illicit drugs, and we've waged a ridiculously expensive war against them, and yet they're available everywhere. Also, does anyone really think governments are going to give up the advantage they gain over civilians with firearms? Or the use of guns in military forces? It's just not going to happen.

Regarding the second assumption, I think this is where the most offensive fallacy lies. Some say if we could eliminate literally every gun from the Earth today, it would be a better world tomorrow. I seriously question this assertion. Guns are hardly the most common tool for killing over the history of the world, and even today, a tool as simple as a machete still reigns supreme.

Centuries ago, it was far easier for bandits and outlaws to terrorize innocent people with brute strength, armor, swords, simple shanks, etc. Without an equalizer like a gun, weak people have absolutely NO way of defending themselves against stronger attackers. If an attacker entered a woman's home at night, she would have to submit to rape, mayhem, murder and robbery. Now, a 6'5 attacker might easily lose a battle with an armed 5'3 elderly woman. So to me, the utopian vision of a gun free world being free of violence is bogus. The same people who are violent with guns would be violent without them, and there would be nothing to stop them.

[nick]

Gun bans don't take into account peoples knowledge. What are they going to do with all those books published for gun-smithing, videos on the net, people with piratical, general knowledge of gun-smithing (or some one in their garage). Sure, you can ban milsurp / commercial guns. But what about Joe Smoe who just reproduced an AK.

If someone knows how to make a weapon from raw materials they will, then you lead to (gasp) thought control.

They also don't take into account all the guns worldwide. Moreover, this assumes that the availability of guns is the cause of violence, however, people have been killing each other in droves way before firearms were invented, and still do where guns are banned. Last I checked, people were killing each other in PRISONS! The only difference was that at the time before firearms the weaker humans didn't have much of a chance (unless they got a hold of a crossbow and those were expensive. Using a bow required a lot of practice), which they do have with firearms.

I talked to my ex-girlfriend today, one of the first things she said was, "looks like barrel shrouds are legal in Holland"

[advocatusdiaboli]

But to an anti's way of thinking, if guns were banned, he never would have picked up the gun in the 1st place.

They'll ignore any logic and this thought will be burned in their brain.

Nevermind the fact that murder is illegal yet he still committed it, no law will ever stop the lawless.

Yep. They forget that Mexico, in at least one way, has more restrictive laws than the US—they prohibit the private ownership of powerful calibers that the military uses. Imagine if 5.56, 7.62, .38, 9mm, .40 S&W, .357, and .45 were illegal here. You, and of course the law-abiding cartels and other criminals there, would legally have access to .22 .25 .32, and .380. The cartels sure do a lot of killing with those "low power" cartridges. I'd sure feel safer down there than here knowing that all laws are obeyed by all and effectively enforced universally. And because of laws and everyone's respect for them, no criminal can access those powerful cartridges. Imagine how safe we'd be here if we banned them to.

[tiki]

<snip>

[Paladin]

just have a moderator add another post below the full one.

Thanks! I'll put in a request.

[Paladin]

I wish more people would explore this logic.

Technically, there *is* an argument for a complete ban EVENTUALLY lowering gun availability. There's just too many guns around right now, but *if* you completely banned firearms, and *if* that law ran for, say, 75 years, eventually you would have a country where it's much harder to find guns.

Another problem that I see that you did not list is that I do NOT want the government (military & police) to be the only ones w/guns. In my eyes, there's not much difference between a police state and a tyranny. After a "benevolent dictator" dies, what's to keep a malevolent dictator from arising? The more power that a government has, the more ambitious and ruthless men will strive to gain power.

[JDoe]

...Translation: as is typical, once the coward realizes there's a GG w/a gun coming after him, he commits suicide...

Grossman in his book "On Killing", Chapter Two, Applications of the Model: Murder-Suicides, Lost Elections, and Thoughts of Insanity suggests an alternate reason that so many of these dirt bags commit suicide.

...an individual who kills several victims in a spree of violent passion, may very well be fixated in the exhilaration stage of killing. But once there is a lull, and the murderer has a chance to dwell on what he has done, the revulsion stage sets in with such intensity that suicide is a very common response.