On Personal Responsibility And Gun Control

January 8, 2013 12:00 pm

by Buzz Brockway · 92 comments

Peach Pundit reader Pat Malone gives his opinion that personal responsibility should play a central role in the debate over gun control:

As we search for solutions our discussion should be framed less around the white-hot emotion of the moment and more about the facts of this situation and pragmatic answers that will prevent similar situations.

The salient facts as reported and confirmed by various media sources are:

* The guns involved were legally obtained and owned by a law-biding citizen.
* That citizen was the mother of a mentally challenged son whose behavior had deteriorated to the point that she was beginning to pursue conservatorship in order to have her son committed.
* The guns were not sufficiently secured from a known mentally challenged and unstable individual. (The consequences of this are horrific.)

So perhaps instead of a national conversation on violence, gun control and mental health, society would be better served with a national conversation on personal responsibility.

Discuss.

Chris Huttman January 8, 2013 at 12:39 pm

What about all the responsible people that sent their kids to school that day? While I do agree with looking at this from all angles, I still think gun rights advocates need to figure out how to answer the following question:

Why is it compatible with the first amendment that you can’t go into a crowded theater and yell fire, yet it isn’t compatible with the second amendment that you can’t go into a crowded theater and fire a 50 round submachine gun?

mountainpass January 8, 2013 at 12:41 pm

Why do you continue to ask this flawed question here?

seenbetrdayz January 9, 2013 at 8:31 am

I believe it is an attempt to elicit an emotional response.

Jackster January 8, 2013 at 12:58 pm

The 1st amendment has everything to do with speech – the act of expressing a view.

The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with FIRING a gun. In fact, by having a 50 round submachine gun, you’re indeed exercising your right to be prepared for some sort of assault on your freedoms.

If you’re a CRAZY person with an AR, then that is a completely different matter, wouldn’t you agree?

Stefan January 9, 2013 at 11:00 am

Well, we can’t legislate away crazy people, so I guess we should legislate away the AR? Seems hasty, but I suppose I’ll support your view on this.

GOPundit January 8, 2013 at 1:19 pm

It is incompatible with the Second Amendment to kill innocent people for exactly the same reason its incompatible with the First… Public Safety. You can not legally do either of the the things you name in your scenarios for exactly the same reason.

Daddy Got A Gun January 8, 2013 at 4:20 pm

Chris,

Yelling Fire is the same as shooting off a round in a theater. No gun owner is saying different. Both actions are illegal. Both are meant to disturb the peace. Both are meant to harm and threaten others. Both should result in jail time.

The second amendment says a person can carry (bear) a firearm into the theater just like you can bring your voice into the theater. Neither is dangerous to the public and should NOT cause concern if handled in a non-threatening and safe manner.

You could scream in the theater to your kids not to eat the candy off the floor. That is harmless and much different than screaming “fire”.

I OPEN CARRIED an assault weapon (as defined by the ’94 ban) to lunch with my 13 yo daughter, yesterday. Did I endanger anyone around us? No! Did I threaten anyone? No! Most people don’t even notice I was carrying while at the same time they benefited from the crime deterrence that my open carried pistol provided. My carried pistol was harmless as you screaming at your kids.

What happened in Sandy Hook in many ways is the fault of the government. The government disarmed EVERY adult in that school. Then the government made sure everyone knew that the adults in that school were without effective means of self-defense. Then the government assigned responsibility for the security of that school to woman with an education degree and classroom experience. Then, the media is surprised when a psycho takes advantage of these defenseless people and this ideal killing environment.

Gun Free Zones whether on private property, in schools, or in government buildings don’t work. In fact, they increase the numbers of killed and wounded. The only way these events stop is when someone with a firearm stops the armed killer. How long the killing continues is dependent on how fast that gun can get to the scene. If its a law enforcement gun, it will arrive at best in 5 minutes and more likely 10 minutes. If its a licensed gun carrier, the gun that will stop the killer is right there at the start. Every minute that the killer is unopposed results in 5 killed or wounded. That is the true price cost of gun control.

Some have called for armed security in schools and armed administrators. It won’t work because it hasn’t worked. Columbine had an armed LEO on site. Blacksburg PD SWAT was on campus when Va Tech happened. There are lots of examples were killers waited until the conditions were right before attacking. They are opportunistic predators.

The only true and effective defense is if licensed adults are allowed to carry everywhere (churches, schools, government buildings, etc.). There are many benefits to this. The two primary benefits are:

1) the killers don’t know who is armed and who is not (that is a significant deterrence for them as they are very risk avoidant). They will move to an easier and less defended target.

2) the speed of response is dramatically increased which results in dramatically less victims. We go from waiting 5 to 10 minutes for Law Enforcement to arrive to less than 1 minute when an adult at the location responds. I don’t know if the principal at Sandy Hook would have carried a gun but I’d bet she wished she had one when she challenged the killer.

A final thought for Rep. Brockway. Worldwide, terrorist attacks against schools are common and in many ways schools are their most effective target. The world and the terrorists have seen on TV how vulnerable and defenseless our schools are. Our dirty little secret is out. The Legislature needs to recognize the extreme danger that we now face. We can discourage the terrorists from attacking us by reducing their chances of success.

We do that by dramatically expanding the number of people that can defend our schools, churches, and government buildings to include background checked Georgia Weapons Licensees. There is no way the state could pay for the number of officers needed to TRULY protect every school . All we can afford is security theater that won’t be around when the next killer strikes. We do have an asset most other states don’t. 600K background check licensees who responsibly carry firearms without incident everywhere else in the state. An Army of Davids can defend our children, parents, and neighbors. Unleash them!

but decreasing thier chances of success by allowing Licensees to carry in churches, schools, and government buildings.

The Last Democrat in Georgia January 8, 2013 at 6:58 pm

+10,000,000…Amen, Brother! Well said!

BubbaRich January 8, 2013 at 7:08 pm

So, instead of an occasional mass-shooting where some idiot kills several people, you want several people to be killed every day when they lose their tempers? Statistically, you know that is what will happen.

Which teachers should carry guns at school? How many millions will it take? How many of those millions of guns will ever be left unlocked, and taken by a student with even less self-control? would you trust all the teachers you’ve ever known to carry a gun? Who gets to decide who carries? Will we train them and supply them and police them as poorly as we train and supply and monitor the teachers’ educational skills?

How long before, for example, you would be REQUIRED to carry a weapon to ride public transit, for instance?

Your ideas and dreams of turning the US into a wild, wild west of good guys always shooting the bad guys (often for revenge at the bad guys shooting other good guys), is a foolish idea, and it would never endure if you managed to force people to live in your Somalia. Like your manhoods, that experiment would be nasty, poor, brutish, and short.

Daddy Got A Gun January 8, 2013 at 8:12 pm

WOW! That was creatively written and factually wrong. I liked “in your Somalia”. Sounds like cool Coen Brothers movie.

Several states allow gun toters to carry in schools (CA, OR, NH, AL). This isn’t new ground and they haven’t experienced the nightmares you described.

Please bear in mind that a carry license is NOT a get out of jail free card. If a licensee commits a crime with his weapon, he goes to jail. If he is irresponsible, he gets sued.

BubbaRich January 8, 2013 at 10:02 pm

If you add more guns to a situation in the real world, you will have more shootings, both intentional and accidental. The ability to get instant revenge does not change that.

California does not allow carrying guns in schools, according to anything I can find.

mountainpass January 9, 2013 at 12:58 am

“If you add more guns to a situation in the real world, you will have more shootings, both intentional and accidental. The ability to get instant revenge does not change that.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/06/california-gun-sales_n_2419534.html
“California has millions more guns than it did 10 years ago. It also has thousands fewer gun injuries and deaths each year.”

“California does not allow carrying guns in schools, according to anything I can find.”

ca 626-626.9

seenbetrdayz January 9, 2013 at 8:33 am

Not to mention that in Georgia your fingerprints are taken when you apply for a CCP, so you’d have to be a complete fool to try to do anything illegal with your gun.

The Last Democrat in Georgia January 8, 2013 at 9:52 pm

“So, instead of an occasional mass-shooting where some idiot kills several people, you want several people to be killed every day when they lose their tempers? Statistically, you know that is what will happen.”

…It’s not law-abiding concealed weapons permit holders that are the problem, it’s the law-breaking career criminals who obtain their firearms illegally who commit the overwhelming majority of violent crimes. Just like all mass shootings are committed by severely mentally-ill individuals who never received any serious help before their mental illness got out of hand and grew to the point where they became a deadly hazard to others (basically everyone around them) and society at-large.

“Which teachers should carry guns at school?”

….Only selected school staff with concealed carry permits would be given the option of carrying protective firearms on their persons.

“How long before, for example, you would be REQUIRED to carry a weapon to ride public transit, for instance?”

…There’s a big difference between being PERMITTED to carry a weapon and being required to carry a personal firearm, Georgia law PERMITS or ALLOWS those with concealed weapons permits to carry a firearm on their persons when riding mass transit if someone with a permit so CHOOSES. With the exception of the very early days of the American republic when there was always a constant threat of invasion by the British, no private citizen has ever been required by government to carry a firearm on their persons. Law-abiding citizens should be allowed to have the opportunity to legally defend themselves against gun-toting criminals who have no regard for (and actually prefer) gun-free zones when targeting potential victims for their crimes.

“Your ideas and dreams of turning the US into a wild, wild west of good guys always shooting the bad guys (often for revenge at the bad guys shooting other good guys), is a foolish idea, and it would never endure if you managed to force people to live in your Somalia. Like your manhoods, that experiment would be nasty, poor, brutish, and short.”

…Tell that to the woman in Loganville, GA who, in self-defense, shot five bullet holes into a career criminal with a propensity for violence who broke into her house while she was at home alone with her two young children in the middle of the day.
http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/cops-suspect-shot-by-loganville-mom-had-cased-anot/nTpkR/

Or tell that to the woman in South Fulton County who was shot several times while attempting to hide in a closet during a violent home invasion by a robbery crew of multiple armed intruders who broke into her home and supposedly stole only an iPad. The woman was hunted down in her own home while hiding and shot multiple times over an iPad! I’m sure that defenseless woman wishes that she would have had immediate access to a high-powered firearm at the life-or-death moment when she absolutely needed it and could have used it against a crew of animals who had no regard for the multiple felonies they were committing or the human life they so savagely attempted to take while committing a violent home invasion.
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/police-hiding-woman-shot-during-fairburn-burglary/nTmk3/

There’s nothing wrong with allowing the GOOD GUYS to shoot down bad guys who are in the act of doing to unspeakable harm to innocent people. In fact, unlike you seemingly, most Americans prefer it to allowing the bad guys to be able to savagely shoot down good guys unabated.

Law-abiding American citizens have had the God-given, Constitutionally-affirmed right to to defend themselves for over 200 years and the experiment that is American Democracy could be described as being anything but “nasty, poor, brutish, and short”. Instead the right of law-abiding private citizens to be able to bear arms and be able to defend themselves against both violent criminals with no regard for the law and the prospect of overbearing government has been a unique feature that distinguishes our democracy from most any other democracy where private citizens have been disarmed by their respective governments for “their own safety”.

Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security.
-Benjamin Franklin

BubbaRich January 8, 2013 at 11:45 pm

More guns in American means more GOOD GUYS get shot, both by bad guys and by good guys.

You don’t think there’s anything wrong with that?

The Last Democrat in Georgia January 9, 2013 at 12:13 am

More LEGAL guns in America means that more BAD GUYS get shot, and I don’t see a damn thing that is wrong about more murderous scum getting what they deserve (like the vermin that broke into the home in Loganville).

Why do you intentionally (and disingenously) conflate legal gun ownership with ILLEGAL gun possession?

Worse yet, why do you seem to have a problem with law-abiding exercising their God-given right to defend their lives, liberty, property and happiness?

The overwhelmingly vast majority of good guys that get shot are shot by bad guys with guns that are possessed and obtained illegally.

Do you really think that the animals (likely already-convicted felons) that tried to kill that lady in her own home in South Fulton County (Fairburn) really went through the trouble of applying for concealed carry permits before using their guns to commit multiple felonies (including attempted murder) during the commission of that violent home invasion? Seriously.

The Last Democrat in Georgia January 9, 2013 at 12:16 am

“Worse yet, why do you seem to have a problem with law-abiding exercising their God-given right to defend their lives, liberty, property and happiness?”

Sorry, I meant to say “Worse yet, why do you have a problem with LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS exercising their God-given right to defend their lives, liberty, property and happiness?”

political arsonist January 9, 2013 at 6:28 am

There are 300 million firearms in the U.S. yet we are all still here. Amazing.
That means the majority are owned by law abiding citizens. They remain holstered or stored every day, only coming out for the occasional day at the range but you think everyone should pay the price for one man’s CRIME.
I have done nothing wrong. I own many firearms because I like them and I carry one because you never know where you’ll be when someone bad comes along.
People who are violent, will be violent and the best way to stop them is with a firearm. A firearm puts a 100 pound woman on equal footing with a 220 pound mugger. Do you think a woman should not be able to defend herself?

The Last Democrat in Georgia January 9, 2013 at 7:27 am

“Do you think a woman should not be able to defend herself?”

…I think that we all know what the gun-grabbers’ answer to your question would be….

mountainpass January 9, 2013 at 9:26 am

The IL State Police had a program that told rape victims to vomit on the attacker(no mention of course to get a gun cause you can’t carry in IL), but that didn’t work to well for this lady: http://mainlinemedianews.com/articles/2012/12/28/region/doc50dd971d71bc8731672534.txt?viewmode=fullstory&buffer_share=3182e

The Last Democrat in Georgia January 9, 2013 at 7:31 am

Let’s just say that the gun-grabbing crowd is much more comfortable with what happened to the defenseness lady in her own home in Fairburn then they are with what the mother of two did to the armed career-criminal who forced his way into her family’s home in Loganville.

Daddy Got A Gun January 9, 2013 at 7:36 am

“More guns in American means more GOOD GUYS get shot, both by bad guys and by good guys.”

The data from the CDC and other sources show the opposite is happening.

90% of the time, the people shooting each other are people involved in crime. Democrat Mayor of Newark researched who got shot in Newark NJ and found the victims 80% of the time had been arrested before an average of 10 times.

Gun ownership and carrying keeps us safe. Think like a killer. Would you want to attack a location where all of the adults are disarmed, such as in a gun-free school or would you want to attack a suburban location where you might face armed opposition? Killers are opportunistic and risk-avoidant. They will go to the gun-free zones because that is where they have the most power and likelihood of success.

One more thing. The UK banned guns after Dunblane but it did NOT stop the mass-murders, for example Cambria. The only way to stop mass murder is if good people are allowed to carry guns.

jbgotcha January 9, 2013 at 8:25 am

All I can say is…y’all crazy.

Joshua Morris January 8, 2013 at 12:58 pm

Throw all the data you like at the problem. The principle remains the same.

WesleyC January 8, 2013 at 1:34 pm

Personal responsibility should definitely be part of the discussion, but the problem is that gun advocates keep trying to get firearms out of the equation entirely by saying “it’s not really guns, it’s X, Y, or Z.” The reality is that it’s guns AND those other things, all of which need to be talked about and addressed comprehensively. Pretending that guns are somehow not relevant to our national epidemic of violence is simply an attempt to invent evidence that satisfies a personal belief, rather that following the evidence and addressing problems it reveals.

mountainpass January 8, 2013 at 1:57 pm

I think “Gun Free Zones”(aka victim disarmanent zones) need to be removed as I think all but 1 mass shooting occured in one. But nobody wants to address that either. Since the federal GFZ was added shootings in them went up 5 fold.

mountainpass January 8, 2013 at 2:00 pm
BubbaRich January 8, 2013 at 1:37 pm

“The guns were not sufficiently secured from a known mentally challenged and unstable individual.”

Heh. You mean, like locking them up, say, in a military barracks?

And is Jackster serious? Who is going to assault your freedoms in a way that an assault rifle could stop them?

David Staples January 8, 2013 at 1:44 pm

“You mean, like locking them up, say, in a military barracks?”

Or a gun safe, you know… like they sell at a variety of gun shops and even major stores like Walmart, Home Depot, and Tractor Supply?

“Who is going to assault your freedoms in a way that an assault rifle could stop them?”

Move the timeframe of your question back a couple hundred years. Who was going to assault our freedoms in a way that a musket could stop them? Part of the purpose of the second amendment was for citizens to protect themselves from an overbearing tyrannical government, should one ever come to exist in this land again. (Some would argue it already has come to exist again.)

mountainpass January 8, 2013 at 1:58 pm

One report mentioned she had a safe, although I am unable to confirm.

BubbaRich January 8, 2013 at 3:09 pm

Why do you think they weren’t in a gun safe? I haven’t seen that information anywhere else, has the police report been issued?

What specific “freedoms” can you protect with your assault rifle, and how will you protect them?

Jackster January 8, 2013 at 3:15 pm

I’ll go with property rights firstly, and then based on whatever rediclous rabbit hole you decide to take us on, it could vary widely.

But because I do not own an AR, nor a gun for that matter, I like to think that I have the right to protect myself if I feel the need.

seekingtounderstand January 9, 2013 at 8:50 pm

Did you miss out on history of governments who took guns from the people?
Those governments then murdered millions and millions of innocent people.
And the way to do that again is if the government lies and says “its to save children”.
Saving children would entail giving them security officer just like our politicans have for their children.

David Staples January 10, 2013 at 10:16 am

“Why do you think they weren’t in a gun safe? I haven’t seen that information anywhere else, has the police report been issued?”

They weren’t in a gun safe at the time they were used in the shooting. If he had access to the gun safe (knew the combination to get into it) then it’s the mother’s fault for giving her son the entry code.

“What specific “freedoms” can you protect with your assault rifle, and how will you protect them?”

I don’t have an assault rifle yet, and right now isn’t the time to buy one since the prices have skyrocketed. I believe I read that the Newtown shooter had a Glock 19 (9mm semi-automatic). If that’s the case, I do own two of those – a 3rd gen and a 4th gen. What freedoms can I protect with those? How about my life and the life of my family? I think that’s a pretty important freedom. Should someone break into my house at 2 am (me not being anywhere near the build of a wrestler, boxer, etc.) they can rest assured that they will end up with a firearm pointed at them at a very minimum and stand a very good chance of experiencing firsthand what a hollow point bullet feels like… multiple times over.

Jackster January 8, 2013 at 2:19 pm

Well, according to the 2nd amendment, the government.

AMB January 8, 2013 at 3:40 pm

Silly boyish fantasies. Little men with big talk. So much overcompensating. So little time…

seenbetrdayz January 9, 2013 at 8:37 am

Because it is much more masculine to watch your wife and daughters be raped by home invaders while you sit on the phone with 911.

Come on. Enough with the ‘overcompensation’ talk.

So, AMB, What was the lady in Walker county “compensating” for last week, when she shot a thug coming towards her and her 9 year old twins?

xdog January 9, 2013 at 8:42 am

Hey, I’m glad the woman and her kids are OK, and I’m not losing any sleep over the house-creeper getting shot, but why in hell when the guy was banging on the door didn’t someone just say ‘go away’?

seenbetrdayz January 9, 2013 at 10:16 am

She did. At first she thought he was a salesman and told him to leave. Of course, he went back to his car for a crowbar, so unless he was out in the neighborhood selling prying tools . . .

I think what you mean is, why didn’t the criminal just use logic, reason, and common decency to leave the property?

This is where the argument breaks down for gun-control advocates. If we lived in a world where criminals were polite, homely individuals, then we could all turn in our guns. I get tired of hearing about how gun owners live in a fantasy world, but then we have to sit and listen to how telling some crook to ‘go away’ can stop a crime?

Frankly, I used to think the gun control groups were largely ignorant of firearms, which leads to fear of them, but I think the bigger problem is a lack of basic understanding of criminal psychology. If telling someone ‘no, go away’ could stop a rape, we’d have a lot less rape cases.

xdog January 9, 2013 at 12:56 pm

I haven’t seen any report that she told him to leave, and I’ve read every AJC stories I’ve seen, including the original. If you have any other information please pass on a link.

As far as ‘a lack of basic understanding of criminal psychology’, we’re talking house-creepers here. I think any cop would tell you that most creepers don’t go in occupied houses and most don’t carry guns. Of course, most are stupid and lazy too. As I said, I’m not worried about him catching a few rounds.

The Last Democrat in Georgia January 9, 2013 at 9:58 pm

xdog, January 9, 2013 at 12:56 pm-

“As far as ‘a lack of basic understanding of criminal psychology’, we’re talking house-creepers here. I think any cop would tell you that most creepers don’t go in occupied houses and most don’t carry guns.”

Though it looks like the intruder who was shot by the homeowner in Loganville was most definitely of the “stupid and lazy” variety, it doesn’t necessarily matter whether we are talking about “house-creepers” or heavily-armed robbery crews conducting outright violent home invasions (as was the case with the defenseless woman who was shot several times while hiding in her closet in her own home in Fairburn), someone who is at home while their locked front doors are being forced open does not know the difference between the two and only knows that they are in an unwanted situation where they are highly-likely be severely harmed by an intruder who obviously has no regard or respect for others’ property and well-being.

Just in Atlanta alone, how many reports have we heard of where an innocent victim was shot and/or killed while attempting to hide from one or more intruders during a violent home invasion?

The answer: So many times that many Metro Atlantans appear to have become numb to the seemingly almost daily reports of innocent victims being irreparably harmed during violent and deadly home invasions.

seenbetrdayz January 10, 2013 at 8:46 am

You are correct. It seems she did not speak out but instead immediately called her husband who told her to go hide. She did try to ‘retreat’, but frankly I don’t blame her for not exposing that anyone was home.

Hindsight is 20-20 but this guy had been arrested 6 times (with at least one battery charge), so I still highly doubt that “go away” would have been much of a deterrent in this situation.

seekingtounderstand January 9, 2013 at 8:53 pm

For the same reason the women in India are demanding guns to stop being raped and killed. As I recall they begged the rapist to stop……………

The Last Democrat in Georgia January 9, 2013 at 9:33 pm

xdog, January 9, 2013 at 8:42 am-

Even if she was at home and did not respond to the intruder’s incessant doorbell ringing, that still did not give him the right to unlawfully force his way into her family’s home through a LOCKED door.

That is not his house, he was not invited to force his into through the door with a crowbar and he had no right to even be on someone else’s property without permission, not to mention he had no right to forcefully be in her family’s home seemingly hunting an innocent woman and her kids with a crowbar.

She had every God-given lawful right to shoot down that intruder like the dirty and dangerous wild animal that he proved himself to be.

xdog January 10, 2013 at 7:39 am

“Even if she was at home and did not respond to the intruder’s incessant doorbell ringing, that still did not give him the right to unlawfully force his way into her family’s home through a LOCKED door.”

You know, it’s not required you respond when you don’t have anything to say. If you want me to take you seriously you have to be way better than suggest I support criminals over law-abiding citizens, especially when nothing I have written would support that view. That’s damn close to goper claims that if you weren’t down with pinhead’s move into Iraq you were a traitor. Go screw yourself.

taylor January 8, 2013 at 9:49 pm

“Gun Free Zones whether on private property, in schools, or in government buildings don’t work. In fact, they increase the numbers of killed and wounded. The only way these events stop is when someone with a firearm stops the armed killer. How long the killing continues is dependent on how fast that gun can get to the scene.”

A shooting in a gun free zone will continue until someone with a firearm shows up. However, the time until a person confronts a shooter is one factor. But another is the type of weapon used by the shooter. Given the same amount of time (whether 30 seconds or 10 minutes), the “numbers of killed and wounded” appear to be significantly higher when individuals can easily obtain semi-automatic weapons and high-capacity magazines.

seenbetrdayz January 9, 2013 at 8:40 am

This showed up my facebook feed a while back:

“You may not like guns, and choose not to own one. That is your right. You might not believe in God. That is your choice. However, if someone breaks into you home the first two things you’re going to do are: 1) Call someone with a guy, and 2) Pray they get there in time.”

It’s funny ’cause it’s true.

seenbetrdayz January 9, 2013 at 8:41 am

Oops, “Call someone with a gun*” lol

seekingtounderstand January 9, 2013 at 8:55 pm

Thats funny……so owning a gun is a DYI.

seenbetrdayz January 10, 2013 at 8:49 am

Not familiar with the acronym.

jbgotcha January 9, 2013 at 2:05 pm

Some of the gun lovers on here sound like they have a mental dysfunction along the lines of mysophobia (fear of germs). All of the potential scenarios (rape, mass shootings, home invasion) result in you feeling a need to carry a gun to feel safe. The gun lobby loves this and the media is complicit. They can create panic and fear through propaganda which results in people running out and buying weapons at a premium (i.e. paying $3000 for an assault rifle that normally would cost $500). Profit, profit, profit. Also, this good guys vs. bad guys paradigm is ridiculous and juvenile at best. Life doesn’t work like a movie, but I guess if it makes you feel better, go for it. If your “pursuit of happiness” includes owning firearms and taking them everywhere you go, who am I to stop you. I will just choose to stand as far away from you as possible.

seekingtounderstand January 9, 2013 at 8:58 pm

There are several terriost cells in Georgia. Its well documented, call the GBI and talk to the agent that watches them. The reason we can not remove them is because they own land and our laws give them rights until they do something illegal.
Do your homework, then talk about being fearful to moms worried about their kids at school.

jbgotcha January 10, 2013 at 8:00 am

Ok, Jason Bourne. I’m glad you’re out there to save me from the terrorist cells. Lol.

seekingtounderstand January 10, 2013 at 12:15 pm

I thought we where talking about saving children in schools as the need for gun control, have not they threaten and killed girl students in their own country. Do you think our children matter to them more?

The Last Democrat in Georgia January 9, 2013 at 2:44 pm

“All of the potential scenarios (rape, mass shootings, home invasion) result in you feeling a need to carry a gun to feel safe.”

…The home invasion incidents that happened last week in Metro Atlanta seemed like much more than just “potential scenarios”, especially to the people that had to experience those savagely violent “scenarios” first-hand.

“Also, this good guys vs. bad guys paradigm is ridiculous and juvenile at best.”

…Sounds like you have a double-standard…Seems that you only think that the good guys vs. bad guys paradigm is only ridiculous and juvenile for the actual law-abiding GOOD GUYS who want to utilize and protect their God-given right to defend themselves against the bad guys that wish to do great harm to defenseless innocents. Why don’t you have the same derisive comtempt for the BAD GUYS that continue to prove the unquestioned validity of the good guys vs. bad guys paradigm on a daily basis just right here in Metro Atlanta alone, not-to-mention throughout the rest of this nation (and the world)? Why only derision and contempt for those law-abiding citizens who choose to lawfully defend themselves against that very real evil and not those who choose to unlawfully commit that evil?

“If your “pursuit of happiness” includes owning firearms and taking them everywhere you go, who am I to stop you. I will just choose to stand as far away from you as possible.”

I guess that you would much rather stand close to the violent career criminal that takes his (or her) unlawfully-obtained and unlawfully-possessed weapons everywhere they go in an effort to willfully take the happiness and liberty away from their random defenseless victims. If that is your prerogative, then so it. But unless a concealed carry permit holder pulled their weapon to save your life, how would you even be able to tell whether a law-abiding citizen is lawfully carrying a CONCEALED weapon, since the lawful weapon would be hidden from public view?

jbgotcha January 9, 2013 at 2:56 pm

You just don’t get it. I’ve lived in Atlanta my whole life, and not in the cushy suburbs either. I am afraid of people like you, not criminals. Most of the time if you don’t mess with people, act humble, be a decent human being, and stay away from trouble, you will be alright. I’m living proof. I’ve had a gun pulled on me over road rage before, but I survived and so did the person who pulled the gun. Things happen to people sometimes. Maybe having a gun will help, maybe not. The point is, you obviously feel like you HAVE to have a gun and that it’s definitive that some BAD GUY will try to get you at some point. That’s fine, but I’m watching out for you and will happily stay away. No double standard there…just real freedom.

The Last Democrat in Georgia January 9, 2013 at 5:15 pm

Likewise, you don’t “get it”, either…I don’t have to have a gun or necessarily feel that I have to have a gun. I WANT to have a gun because I like utilizing my God-given, Constitutionally-affirmed right as a law-abiding and God-fearing American to lawfully own and lawfully possess a gun. And unlike the anti-gun crowd who looks down their noses with derision at legal gun owners more than they do violent criminal felons who use illegal guns (and other weapons) to commit violent and even savage crimes, I don’t personally hold it against other law-abiding citizens who don’t want to own firearms.

And I don’t get scared of violent criminals, I get ANGRY and, if necessary, I don’t just get even, I get the upper hand.

I grew up and am currently staying in an urban neighborhood (two quadruple homicides in a five-block radius in the past decade) where the animals like to come out at sunset and during darkness hours wildly shoot off rounds frequently from semi-automatic handguns, shotguns, fully automatic AK’s, AR’s, M-16′s and the not-so-occasional (and shockingly-frequent) Street-Sweeper. I grew up with guys that started carrying small semi-automatic handguns on them in the SEVENTH GRADE due to their active participation in the illegal drug trade.

Growing up, I also had a next-door neighbor who used to like to violently rob drug dealers of their money and cash, often, but not always, with a sawed-off shotgun…The real kicker is that my next door neighbor, who was one of the most-feared stick-up guys in the entire city, liked to use the money from his violent street robberies of drug dealers to send his little sister, who was my best friend growing up, to out-of-state Bible-study camps during the summer…How’s that for irony?

Needless to say, it’s probably not all that much of a shocker that all of these guns that were and are being possessed and used illegally were not legally-obtained after getting a concealed carry permit.

It’s also needless to say that, growing up in an environment where so many criminals, outlaws and convicted felons were able to get their hands on high-powered firearms with ease due to their connection to the illegal drug trade, I know first-hand that so-called “gun-control” laws are nothing more than a sick joke designed by the powers-that-be to give a false sense-of-security to sheltered suburbanites (often on the coasts) who fall for the lie that taking guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens prevents violent gun crimes from being committed by illegal gun-toting criminals.

jbgotcha January 9, 2013 at 5:57 pm

That post just told me everything I need to know about you and I pray we never cross paths. Carry on , tough guy, carry on.

The Last Democrat in Georgia January 9, 2013 at 8:09 pm

Scaredy cat. If you are more scared of law-abiding gun owners than you are violent criminals who use guns to commit deadly crimes then you DO have big problems. I wish you the best and hope that you are able to get over that very misplaced fear of yours.

The Last Democrat in Georgia January 9, 2013 at 8:29 pm

jbgotcha, January 9, 2013 at 2:56 pm-

“I’ve had a gun pulled on me over road rage before, but I survived and so did the person who pulled the gun.”

I obviously don’t know the particulars of what happened during your road rage incident, but just because someone pulled a gun on you out on the road does not mean that person was a concealed carry permit holder…In Georgia one is not required by law to obtain and hold a concealed carry permit to lawfully have a firearm in their vehicle as a person’s vehicle is regarded by the law as an extension of their home.

jbgotcha January 10, 2013 at 8:01 am

That wasn’t my point. My point was that if I was armed, one or both of us might be dead.

political arsonist January 10, 2013 at 8:58 am

Did you report this? If someone driving down the road pulls a gun you should call the police.

jbgotcha January 10, 2013 at 9:40 am

Why? So I can waste several hours waiting for them to arrive so I can get a report and a case number? No thanks.

seenbetrdayz January 10, 2013 at 10:10 am

That’s kind of the same argument gun owners have.

Court TV: 911 recording of woman raped while waiting for cops to arrive:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaAPnnjA16U&list=LL3ai2KIJeqEIBE9UfMjcPbA

It’s really a matter of personal preference. How you choose to handle a situation is entirely up to you. But, I for one won’t risk my loved ones being in situations like this where they have NO means of defense available to them. Will it ever happen in my lifetime? Not likely. But it only takes one time.

David Staples January 10, 2013 at 10:21 am

Most likely it wouldn’t take several hours for them to arrive for something like this. I’m sorry, but anyone who pulls a gun in a fit of road rage should suffer some sort of punishment and penalties. At a very minimum it would teach them that this is not acceptable behavior nor is it responsible gun ownership.

jbgotcha January 10, 2013 at 10:37 am

I don’t think it would have had the impact you think it will. The person would have been long gone by the time the APD arrived. Maybe some of the badass gun owners on this site should give me their phone numbers so I can call them if something like this happens again. They probably could have killed the guy in one shot from 50 yards away. Lol.

David Staples January 10, 2013 at 11:20 am

Unless one of the “badass gun owners” on this site owns a security services firm, I would imagine the police would be there quicker. The person may have been long gone, but I’ll bet he had a license plate on his vehicle that the police could perhaps use to find him, no?

jbgotcha January 10, 2013 at 11:25 am

Right. It wasn’t worth it to me. It felt similar to avoiding a car accident…I was just thankful no one died and I kept going on with my day. It was scary for a moment, but it passed. This was over 10 years ago.

David Staples January 10, 2013 at 11:42 am

The difference being that a guy intentionally getting out of his car and pointing a gun at you isn’t an “accident”.

jbgotcha January 10, 2013 at 11:45 am

He didn’t get out of the car.

David Staples January 10, 2013 at 11:48 am

Trivial detail. He still didn’t point the gun at you by “accident”, did he? It was an intentional act which he should have been held accountable for, just as if he walked into a bank or convenience store and pointed a gun at them.

jbgotcha January 10, 2013 at 11:51 am

I realize that, but I was speaking from MY perspective. I chose to look at it that way and move on.

David Staples January 10, 2013 at 12:17 pm

I understand. To me, it’d be like seeing someone come running out of a bank after having just robbed it. Do you stick around and give the description of the car they’re driving to the police or just write it off as a scary experience and go on about your day? Personally, I’d want them to be caught so that perhaps they won’t do that again. Just a difference of personality I guess. :-)

jbgotcha January 10, 2013 at 12:19 pm

I see what you’re getting at. I would stick around if I witnessed a crime, but I felt this threat was singularly directed at me and I chose not to pursue it. That’s just how I felt like dealing with it on that particular day.

David Staples January 10, 2013 at 12:29 pm

But that’s just my point. Threatening someone by pointing a gun at them is a crime.

jbgotcha January 10, 2013 at 12:31 pm

Sorry, I meant to say if I witnessed a crime against someone else I would stick around.

political arsonist January 10, 2013 at 10:34 am

ummm….I am going to call BS on your story. Someone that is so anti-gun would love the chance to call the police on some DANGEROUS person with a gun.

political arsonist January 10, 2013 at 10:35 am

That comment was for jbgotcha.

jbgotcha January 10, 2013 at 10:39 am

I’m not anti-gun. I just choose not to own one, nor do I believe that gun owners that post here are crack shots that will protect anyone in danger if only they had the right to carry EVERYWHERE. You so badly want to pigeonhole me, but it just won’t work.

political arsonist January 10, 2013 at 11:52 am

I don’t carry to protect everyone, I carry to protect myself and kids.

jbgotcha January 10, 2013 at 11:58 am

Right.

political arsonist January 10, 2013 at 12:03 pm

Again, do you not think a woman should be able to protect herself? Men commit 99% of the violent crimes, I should be able to defend myself. Don’t worry, I won’t defend you.

jbgotcha January 10, 2013 at 12:08 pm

I don’t understand what you are saying. Where have I ever said anything about a woman not having the right to defend herself? Stop trying to paint me in a corner. Sober up and maybe we can continue the convo.

political arsonist January 10, 2013 at 12:11 pm

You don’t believe I carry to protect myself. That is obvious by you smart@$$ “right” comment.

jbgotcha January 10, 2013 at 12:17 pm

No. I just didn’t want to respond to something that has been addressed already. I fully understand that you believe to need to have a gun to protect you and your family. That’s your prerogative.

seekingtounderstand January 10, 2013 at 12:20 pm

Yes, you want real freedom by taking freedom from others. Glad your staying away.

jbgotcha January 10, 2013 at 12:23 pm

Whatever, man. Keep seeking to understand and maybe you will one day.

jbgotcha January 10, 2013 at 10:45 am

As for gun free zones: Banning guns in cities doesn’t work when there are no borders between cities and states. A gun ban in a region without borders is effectively meaningless. And the reasons guns were banned in those places was because they were areas that were predisposed to having high levels of gun violence to begin with

I really don’t understand the “criminals will have guns” argument. Criminals have guns right now. The more guns that are out there, the more criminals (and non-criminals that are just idiots or crazy) that will have access to them.

If I’m not mistaken, the way a gun confrontation works is that whoever shoots first usually wins. It’s not a video game battle with a lifebar, where you can get shot, pull your gun out and have an extended gun battle. One shot is usually enough to kill and/or incapacitate somebody. Whoever has the element of surprise and/or inclination to shoot somebody first (which will be the criminal whether or not guns banned) is at a significant advantage. The only type of crime that is potentially deterred by widespread gun ownership are home invasions, since a potential thief never knows if the owner of the house might have a gun (and more importantly have enough time to get the gun ready and be willing to use it if they hear an intruder).

I also assume most home invasions don’t involve shooting somebody. If I’m planning on robbing a random person’s house and I think he might have a gun, I’ll probably go elsewhere, but if I want to kill a specific person in their house I can just wait until I catch them slipping, whether they have a gun or not. The amount of scenarios in which widespread gun ownership will decrease actual gun violence is minuscule in comparison to the amount of gun violence that occurs when you put guns in the hand of every idiot with a pulse. While I strongly disagree that banning guns will lead to an increase in violent crime, you can make a (weak) argument that crimes like home invasion might increase, but to say that banning guns will not decrease gun violence is ridiculous.

jbgotcha January 10, 2013 at 10:51 am

All that being said, I’m still not for a total ban on guns. I just wanted to point out what I see as flawed logic considering gun ownership.

seekingtounderstand January 10, 2013 at 12:22 pm

The whole discussion should be who will profit and make millions on the democrat gun control and resulting new taxes and fees?
Any ideas because that is what this is all about. Money.

jbgotcha January 10, 2013 at 12:23 pm

That same statement applies to everyone and everything in a free market society.

political arsonist January 10, 2013 at 12:54 pm

It’s about power and control.

Comments on this entry are closed.