BF2S Forums Gun Free Zones

We have a conceal and carry law here in Minnesota and there was absolutely no effect on crime rates.

On another note, I feel that I would rather have a law where you have to have the gun visible at all times.  If a criminal walked into a store to rob it and say there were 4 people in the store and half had a gun visible to the criminal, do ya think he would still rob the store with the risk of being shot!

Last edited by viper313 (2008-02-21 16:20:56)

PureFodder wrote:

I'm all for Britains gun ban laws, but I fully agree that most gun free zones in a country with widespread gun ownership are moronic.

If the country's populace can own guns, then the problems of gun ownership (a vast increase in the number of armed criminals) is already in place and gun free zones are obviously going to do nothing to stop it unless the gun free zone is securely fenced off and everyone who enters has to go through a rigourous safety check and it is filled with armed patrols just in case. So the White house for example is a sensible gun free zone. Having all the white house staff armed is likely to result in a large number of dead members of the executive branch.

Places like university campuses, you're only restricting the law abiding citizens who can have the potential to stop criminals. There's nothing in particular stopping armed people from entering most campuses, hence nothing to prevent a violation of the gun free zone.

Hmmm, agreed. In Britain we find criminals making lethal firearms out of legal BB guns. They are not as powerful but when you are shooting someone at close range then it works perfectly. Then there is Rhys Jones in Liverpool who was gunned down with illegal firearms in a country who had a knife ammnesty, let alone firearms. A 11 year old child walking home from football or soccer practise killed easily and the killer is still no closer to being caught, they only just found the dumped gun.

In countries with strict gun banning there is still huge problems so scrapping the 2nd ammendment would result in disaster and wide spread shooting for decades to come.

apollo_fi wrote:

Parker wrote:

then lets hear it....whats wrong with what he said?

I feel old Ted is himself offering 'a recipe for disaster written in blood on the altar of denial.'

With the exceptions of the shooting range, the hunting area, and the collector's cabinet, guns have no place in civilian life. IMO.

Is your perception of civilian life derived from Archie comics?

IRONCHEF wrote:

viper313 wrote:

We have a conceal and carry law here in Minnesota and there was absolutely no effect on crime rates.

On another note, I feel that I would rather have a law where you have to have the gun visible at all times.  If a criminal walked into a store to rob it and say there were 4 people in the store and half had a gun visible to the criminal, do ya think he would still rob the store with the risk of being shot!

Were there any schools shot up that were in a "gun free zone?"  If not, then you're on a different subject.

The problem with openly carrying is that you now become a target for robbery.  If a bad guy goes into a convenience store, he's not going to check for openly carried weapons on other patrons before robbing, he's just going to do it.  If he did see an openly carried weapon, that person now gets extra attention and depending on the ambition of the bad guy, he may rob the patron of his gun, and the store.

I don't know about you but I wouldn't rob someone that is carrying a gun. You would probably get shot.  So how does that make you a target?  It would be more of a deterant.  Most small time criminals would rather not get shot robbing a store.  Just look at all the videos you see on those police video shows.  If the cashier fights back or pulls out a gun, the robber runs away.  Now granted, the robber will usually shots back but at the point the cashier pulls out the gun, the robber is already robbing the store.  He didn't know there was a gun behind the counter.  If he saw the gun before he started robbing the place, 99.9 % of the criminals would probably leave to find an easier target.

I support all college campuses allowing air tasers on school grounds.  I think allowing guns would be a bit much, but air tasers serve as excellent defensive weapons.

Ted makes a lot of sense about guns, but he's pretty incoherent on most other things -- like drug policy.  He claims to never have done any drugs, but the cover of one of his albums has paraphernalia on it.

Well, if Ted is truly a supporter of freedom, he should be against the War on Drugs.

apollo_fi wrote:

Maybe the main difference here is that I've grown used to the idea that there are guns around, but it is never, in no circumstances whatsoever, within sane behaviour to point the gun at a human being. Not even in self-defense.

I had to read this sentence about 3 times to be sure of what he wrote.

Not even in self-defense

It is not sane to defend yourself?  Your family?  The kid sitting next to you on the bus? 

A legally armed society is a polite society.

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Well, if Ted is truly a supporter of freedom, he should be against the War on Drugs.

True.  But I don't know if he ever tried to stop his band members from getting high.  I don't know his position on that.

Fair enough...  I'm glad we can agree on the War on Drugs as well.  If nothing else, we need to legalize pot for the tax revenue and the freed up prison space.

PureFodder wrote:

I'm all for Britains gun ban laws, but I fully agree that most gun free zones in a country with widespread gun ownership are moronic.

If the country's populace can own guns, then the problems of gun ownership (a vast increase in the number of armed criminals) is already in place and gun free zones are obviously going to do nothing to stop it unless the gun free zone is securely fenced off and everyone who enters has to go through a rigourous safety check and it is filled with armed patrols just in case. So the White house for example is a sensible gun free zone. Having all the white house staff armed is likely to result in a large number of dead members of the executive branch.

Places like university campuses, you're only restricting the law abiding citizens who can have the potential to stop criminals. There's nothing in particular stopping armed people from entering most campuses, hence nothing to prevent a violation of the gun free zone.

This is an eminently logical statement. Thank you.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

What I don't get is this insanely illogical (yet emotive) idea that allowing concealed weapons and allowing guns anywhere and everywhere will magically reduce crime rates.  Does gun ownership automatically turn you into a hero with no possibility of shooting up the place?  Do these concealed weapons come with a morality switch that allows the person to only do the right thing, every time?

1. Yes, concealed carry laws do have a positive correlation to the decrease of violent crime. According to published data (that I only have in hard copy, pm me for citations), after enacting a concealed carry statute, a state's murder rates fall 8%, rape falls 6%, aggrivated assault falls 11%, and robbery falls 14%.

2. No, gun ownership does not turn you into a hero. Quit being melodramatic. That being said, anyone who is willing to go through the hassle of obtaining a concealed carry license is going to be a law-abiding citizen. You get photographed, fingerprinted, sit through a class, pass a written test, sit through another class, pass a firearms proficency test, and then get an in-depth background check.

And it's expensive.

One who has a concealed carry license already has a morality switch. And it's always on. Are there a few bad apples? Yes. There always are.

IRONCHEF wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

What in your opinion is some of the "retarded legislation" passed by the pro-guns people then?

Are there even any laws passed by pro-gun people?  Come to think of it, I can't recall a pro-gun law..just pro-gun people trying to curtail or stop anti-gun legislation.  Heller, microstamping, led ammo ban, AW PC, SF prop H, defending gun shows, Kasler, etc...all defensive items that become precedent, but no new laws made by gun owners that I can think of.

Pro-gun people do support laws. The NRA and its members were VERY supportive of the bill that passed after the VT shootings, requiring states to submit mental health data to the NCIC. Additionally, pro-gun people support the expansion of wildlife reserves, wetlands, and other wilderness areas.

We're also big fans of anti-crime legislation that works. Want to read about a real miscarriage of justice? Spend a little time researching Project Exile. Clinton killed it.

Turquoise wrote:

I support all college campuses allowing air tasers on school grounds.  I think allowing guns would be a bit much, but air tasers serve as excellent defensive weapons.

Again, only a fool brings anything other than a gun to a gun fight. Tasers have limited range. And are expensive. EXPENSIVE. Much more than the avgerage college student can afford.

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Ted makes a lot of sense about guns, but he's pretty incoherent on most other things -- like drug policy.  He claims to never have done any drugs, but the cover of one of his albums has paraphernalia on it.

I dunno man.  I remember seeing a BIO about him on tv.  They interviewed his band mates or people close to him and they all said he was a straight edge.

He abstains from drugs, but that man could drink you and I under a table. Matching us 2 for 1.

Umm is it just me or would the reason these shootings happened in the first place be cuz guns are accessable?

If these people couldnt get their hands on guns u wouldnt need guns to defend urself...

So let me get this right... u need guns, to defend urself from guns...

i might be crazy but if there were no guns. u wouldnt need guns.

Reciprocity wrote:

Little BaBy JESUS wrote:

Umm is it just me or would the reason these shootings happened in the first place be cuz guns are accessable?

If these people couldnt get their hands on guns u wouldnt need guns to defend urself...

So let me get this right... u need guns, to defend urself from guns...

i might be crazy but if there were no guns. u wouldnt need guns.

and how would you suggest getting rid of tens of millions of firearms? nicely ask all the criminals to hand in their gats?

I agree that the problem would be extremely hard to solve now... not impossible but very hard.

IMO gun laws in america should have been changed a long time ago... the 2nd ammendment really doesnt apply to today, its a different world.

its not impossible to get guns under control... other western countries have done it... and arnt having continuing problems.