The shooting of the Sheriff in WV should make us reflect on the purpose of arming ourselves

[CreekDog]

It's not that being armed in this situation doesn't ever make one safer.

It's that this is an illustration of how limited the number of situations where being armed does make a person safer.

What we should weigh in our minds is which of the two things make us safer, overall, on average, in most situations:

1) having increasing numbers of people carrying arms at all times or most times and having most people think that they are

or

2) having fewer and fewer people armed, that guns are difficult to acquire, strongly discouraged to carry, and ammunition limited and regulated, to the extent that most people you meet or see on the street will not be armed.

I think the latter is a safer thing and while that would take societal change and a change in values to accomplish, there are rewards that go with that, such as a de-escalation on the streets, the hope that someday some of our peace officers could do their jobs without carrying arms.

While I grant that there will of necessity be members or roles within our society which must be able to use force at times to maintain peace or order, at the same time, in order for values of non violence to be valued in our society, we as a society, have to have individuals willing to live that way and think that way. The average citizen needs to be a part of the solution where we are not constantly fearful of our fellow citizens to the extent that we carry deadly force wherever we go. If we are, and if we act on those fears by being prepared to mete out deadly force on a moment's notice, as a fact of our lives, we may make ourselves safer in particular limited situations, but we will all be less safe overall because our society will be much more hostile, less trusting and able to use deadly force on a moment's notice with that context in the background.

We have to deal with how we think about guns and how we relate to each other. Both need to change and need a dose of reality.

[customerserviceguy]

1. Apples and oranges

Law enforcement people (including prosecutors) are assassination targets for the criminals that eventually get loose with revenge on their minds. The average citizen usually only has to encounter, at worst, some idiot who might be clumsy enough to pull a trigger during a botched robbery attempt to get money for drugs.

Criminals will never be dissuaded to carry and use weapons by any sort of peaceful aura that you wish the rest of us to adopt.

[CreekDog]

2. if you don't support gun control, then you shouldn't be posting here.

[customerserviceguy]

3. So, you're threatened by answers to your posts?

Ok, I'll post more carefully, and avoid this forum. Enjoy your echo chamber, it will help you feel like more people agree with you than actually do.

[CreekDog]

5. the rules are the rules, if you can't abide, then you aren't participating here in good faith

secondly, if you talk about my post wherein most people are unarmed and the crime rate is lower as being some sort of dreamlike world/utopia that doesn't exist, well deadly violence is lower in many places whose populaces are basically unarmed or lightly armed already.

Japan
Germany
United Kingdom
Canada

I didn't ask for utopia, I asked for us to move our culture away from arms and away from violence. Many countries have done so already and while non is crime free, many democracies are places that freer and safer than here in the United States we could imagine.

And if we continue to arm ourselves here (though the rate of gun ownership is dropping), the idea that we will be safer is seriously questionable and I want to counter the idea that we will be safer if such a trend occurs.

[SunSeeker]

6. By that logic, DU is one big echo chamber, since we don't allow conservatives. nt

[CreekDog]

8. you would do well to follow the rules, read this:

...members agree that more guns are not the solution to gun violence...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1262503

[SunSeeker]

7. Thank you.

Gungeoneers are allowed everywhere else on this site It is nice to have a place free of their insults and gun nuttery, where we can talk freely without the thread being hijacked.

[freshwest]

9. Sorry, wrong line.

[SunSeeker]

4. K&R

[Trunk Monkey]

11. I find that poster to be disingenuous in the extreme.

I find that poster to be disingenuous in the extreme. In garrison soldiers (Excepting MPs) are almost never armed. Arms are kept in the arms room and ammunition is stored at a separate site (generally in the field training area and no where near the main post). None of the soldiers shot at Ft. Hood were or would have been allowed to carry a firearm on post.

[Robb]

12. Agreed. And this is why base shootings are so rare.

That would suggest a similar system would be beneficial to the general public, yes? Like Congress' health plan?

[Trunk Monkey]

13. That makes some sense until you do the math

On an Army Post (The Air force and the Navy have "bases" Sorry that's a pet peeve of mine) the entire perimeter in fenced in and all the access points are manned by either civilian armed guards or Military police. Any person entering the post must present ID and any vehicle is subject to search.

Are you willing to give up that much freedom?

[Robb]

14. We have police. People leaving and entering the country are searched.

What freedom do you think is lost when guns are removed from the equation, as they are on bases?

[Trunk Monkey]

15. What freedom do you think is lost when guns are removed from the equation, as they are on bases?

4th amendment

And remember if these measures had succeeded in removing guns from the equation on bases we wouldn't be having this discussion.

and remember the machinery required to make a gun already exists within the boundaries of this country.

In order for your idea to work you'd need stop and frisk check points all over the country (that's a freedom I'm not willing to give up) every machine shop in the country would have to have a perimeter fence around it an every employee would have to be subject to search when leaving the building.

every plumbing or pipe fitting shop

every place that uses explosives for mining or demolition or fireworks displays.

You can't restrict access to a country the way you can to a military installation

[shedevil69taz]

17. It doesn't help

That anyone who lives in the on-post housing area's can store their private firearms in their home...inside the fence. Even if they end up having their vehicle randomly searched while coming through the gate (which during current threat levels happens rarely) as long as its unloaded at the time all they would have to do is claim they were coming home from a range.

[shedevil69taz]

16. Where were all those guns at exactly?

Oh yes because only military police are allowed to carry, and while on duty, they were all either locked up in the arms rooms of the units (which can take anywhere from 10-20 minutes to access) or many miles away in the training areas. So yes while there were hundreds of Soldiers in the building not one of them was legally allowed to be armed in said building according to the regulations governing all military bases.

[CreekDog]

18. you should not be posting here since you don't favor gun control

this group is not for arguing NRA talking points nor arguing that more guns or more armed people is the solution.

[shedevil69taz]

19. I do actually

Think that things can be done to try and keep weapons out of the hands of those that shouldn't have them. Requiring a background check for every firearm transfer is an example.

I don't really mind limits on magazine capacities either (although New York's new law with an arbitrary 7 round limit going a bit too far IMO) I already have all the 30 round mags I will ever need plus if those should break most of anything I do with my guns having to use a 10 round mag will be just fine.

In this instance I was simply pointing out that this image is inaccurate.

[CreekDog]

20. you concern trolled and downplayed my post about lead shot

you attempted to derail and discount the well studied and well known problem of lead shot.

you are attempting to do the same here while pretending not to.

quoting a regulation you didn't know and therefore couldn't quote and therefore didn't know what you were talking about:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1262&pid=949

but then again, you had to be the one to make this argument. the others who tried have been blocked.