Loughner declined from the army, but passed a background check to buy a gun?

[purist]

Originally Posted by Nocte [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Pretty sure that's not what happened. Go read it again.

It's pretty simple, dude. You tried to posit a relationship between gun ownership and crime ("If I was a robber and I felt that everyone around me was carrying a firearm and there was a 50% chance of getting shot, I probably wouldn't want to be a robber anymore"). When I posted why I think that argument was a canard, you proceeded to insert disqualifiers ("not mentally ill individuals who may be drawn to commit violent acts") and qualifiers ("opportunistic criminals who prey on those weaker than them").

Btw, and I'm all for gun ownership, I just think the arguments that crime can be reduced by (a) restricting access to guns; or (b) making them more available are equally spurious. You only seem to think that (a) first one is.

[Hoggen]

Originally Posted by purist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Btw, and I'm all for gun ownership, I just think the arguments that crime can be reduced by (a) restricting access to guns; or (b) making them more available are equally spurious. You only seem to think that (a) first one is.

I don't have time to research, but I'm pretty sure that crime is generally higher in areas where gun laws are more restrictive, and that crime statistically rises when new gun laws are imposed. Someone claimed earlier that it happened in the UK.

[purist]

There is no causal relationship.

Don't posit a claim if you're too lazy to do the research.

[LevinJ]

Why I own a gun: I am not good at being a victim. And I would rather risk my life than live the rest of my life knowing that my wife/other family/similar was hurt when I know that I could have done something to protect them. For better or worse, I live in a society where guns are prevalent and where local law enforcement is in a public union that sometimes slows down their response rate when they have pay and contract disputes (or when they feel like it).

This is not idle chat or a random feeling from watching movies. I am in the military and I am a combat veteran. I know what it means to carry a gun, be shot at, and to contemplate the consequences of pulling the trigger. I currently own a shotgun which is within arms reach while I sleep. It has rounds in the magazine but not in the chamber.

There have been break-ins in my town recently, largely because they know the police are slow to respond. My wife is pregnant and if I thought someone had broke into my home, I would be on a hair trigger. Don't like this? Don't break into my home. I currently live in a state where getting concealed carry license is near impossible, regrettably. We are moving soon to another state and I plan on getting a conceal carry license as soon as possible. I am a Catholic and I strongly oppose needlessly taking another life. But defense of my family from an aggressor is another thing entirely.

A female co-worker of mine was driving the other day at night through the city and someone ran up to her stopped car at a red light and mugged her at gun point. At the nearby university I attend, there have been similar muggings (mostly at knife point) and sexual assaults. Maybe a dozen in the past year. I don't think those criminals could even tell you what the laws for concealed carry or lawful gun possession are in my state.

Would I prefer that the world was different? Yes. Am I eager to point a gun at someone and pull the trigger? No. Am I aware that the odds of me or my immediate family being a victim of crime are significantly high, no matter what precautions I take? Yes. Just the world we live in.

[Peatree]

Originally Posted by Kassel [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I have a 6 cell mag light (not even sure if its legal anymore ) under the bed, you know in case the lights go out...and a baseball bat in living room down stairs with easy access. I am Canadian so it would be rare that an intruder would have a gun, in fact more often then not its a teenager or a crack head. If they do have a gun, i help them load up my various electronics into their van then call my insurance agent. I am not really anti gun, just not pro gun, (am i allowed to be in the middle ?? maybe i am anti hand gun i really dont know)

I agree in not using lethal force over simple possesions. If someone was breaking into my car -- I'd simply call the cops and let them deal with it. Not storm out there guns blazing telling them to "freeze".

Here is what concerns me. What would happen if teenager/crack head/home invader came in with a gun and decided to not only rob you -- but also rape your daughter/wife/girlfriend...and all you had was your mag light....what now?

Again -- I'd rather have it, be trained on it, know how to use it and when to use it....than not....make sense?

[Contact]

Originally Posted by Peatree [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I agree in not using lethal force over simple possesions. If someone was breaking into my car -- I'd simply call the cops and let them deal with it. Not storm out there guns blazing telling them to "freeze".

Here is what concerns me. What would happen if teenager/crack head/home invader came in with a gun and decided to not only rob you -- but also rape your daughter/wife/girlfriend...and all you had was your mag light....what now?

Again -- I'd rather have it, be trained on it, know how to use it and when to use it....than not....make sense?

You having a gun in that scenario means squat. They have a gun pointed at your loved one, presumably, so how the hell will you having one help at all?

[LevinJ]

Oh, and on a side note, I understand he was denied to the army because he did not pass a drug test (apparently he is a pot head). The army probably does not release those drug tests to police, as this could hurt recruiting if people were afraid that they faced being criminally charged if anything came out while they were talking to a military recruiter.

[Peatree]

Originally Posted by Contact [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You having a gun in that scenario means squat. They have a gun pointed at your loved one, presumably, so how the hell will you having one help at all?

Ridiculous comment. There are too many assumptions in this scenario...you are assuming that they have a gun pointed at them, assuming they got inside without being noticed, assuming our dog doesn't alert us, assuming everything...life isn't a movie nor is it a sitcom.

If I was in a scenario where someone had a gun holding someone hostage...then that is a totally different scenario. In fact we can role play and argue scenario's all day long...but why? It doesn't matter.

My point being -- if the only option I had was a mag light from the beginning of the scenario, then I have limited option as to how I can respond versus if I am armed then I can choose how I react.

The real problem in my opinion is that it is too easy to first obtain a firearm...and there are no real punishments if you are caught with one illegally.

In my opinion, to own a handgun for personal defense then you should have to pass a test...just like driving a car...but a more thorough test with a background check. It should also require you to stay legal -- hence be tested regularly in order to keep your license to own/carry.

If your caught without being licensed then the penalty should be very harsh...in fact I think a viable option would be to not only punish the person that is not licensed -- but to also punish the establishment/person for selling/providing a firearm to an unlicensed person.

I do understand that any system is flawed -- but we need to have something...as it stand right now it is to "loose"...obviously...

[Nocte]

Originally Posted by purist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It's pretty simple, dude.

It is pretty simple. I was talking about myself and how I would choose to act if I were a violent criminal (and implying that there are probably those who think and act similarly).

I wasn't relating it to the blanket definition of crime. This seems to be where you aren't seeing what I'm saying.

[Occam's Butter Knife]

Originally Posted by Hoggen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I don't have time to research, but I'm pretty sure that crime is generally higher in areas where gun laws are more restrictive, and that crime statistically rises when new gun laws are imposed. Someone claimed earlier that it happened in the UK.

There's a better relationship between White Castle and violent crime than between gun bans and violent crime.