# Target customers have become a target



## rkunsaw (Jul 11, 2014)

> Within three days of a new policy asking customers not to bring their guns to Target stores, reports have surfaced of armed attacks on customers at those stores.
> 
> Three Target shoppers at three different stores in Georgia alone have been robbed by armed thugs since the discount retailer announced on July 2, in a letter from its CEO, that customers should leave their guns at home when they visit Target.


http://toprightnews.com/?p=4395


----------



## rkunsaw (Jul 11, 2014)

Selena said:


> I didn't even know that you could bring a gun into Target before....you mean there were moms walking around with guns in their diaper bags?
> 
> .



Probably not so much in California.


----------



## JustBonee (Jul 11, 2014)

Another reason I do most of my shopping online!  .. So far, no one has stuck a gun to my head while sitting at my computer. :disgust:


----------



## SeaBreeze (Jul 11, 2014)

Most places where they have outlawed guns are the places where people are victims of gun violence from criminals, the movie theater, the military base, the schools, etc.  Criminals are not stupid, they'd rather take out sitting ducks than be challenged by a responsible armed citizen.


----------



## Justme (Jul 11, 2014)

No citizen is responsible if they are armed!


----------



## Davey Jones (Jul 11, 2014)

I dont know what Target and those other stores are worried about, these hair brain nitwits have a right to use that red Target  credit card in their stores.


----------



## MrJim (Jul 11, 2014)

The idea that having a bunch of hot heads running around in public packing handguns would make us safer ignores a lot of very likely scenarios.

Those who advocate that, seem to think that, like in the movies, the "good guys" always shoot straight, their bullets always magically go right where they were intended to go & never miss, pass thru the bad guy &/or or ricochet around & hit someone else.

God help us all when it gets to the point where it's more likely than not, that anyone you encounter in public is armed.

We'll probably start seeing more people getting cut down in the crossfire between legal gun owners than are getting shot by criminals.

And God forbid you get into a dispute over a parking space or a road rage incident.


----------



## Davey Jones (Jul 11, 2014)

re:Those who advocate that, seem to think that, like in the movies, the "good guys" always shoot straight, their bullets always magically go right where they were intended to go & never miss, pass thru the bad guy &/or or ricochet around & hit someone else.


Ever notice these good guys never run out of bullets?  The NRA should look into this.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Jul 11, 2014)

Justme said:


> No citizen is responsible if they are armed!



I absolutely disagree, that is very untrue, IMO.


----------



## Pappy (Jul 11, 2014)

I am certainly never going to change anyone's mind about concealed carry and I have no intention of doing so.
my story: I am 76 years old and have handled guns all my life. I was brought up in the country where hunting was a way of life. In the service I fired 3.5 rocket launchers, pistols, rifles, hand grenades, and 30 cal machine guns. Ok, enough of that.

in Florida, I do have a concealed weapons permit and do carry either my Kel-tec 9 mm or .380 pocket gun.  So far, I haven't shot any innocent people or run around like a nut scaring the hell out of people. I do not, or have not, had the occasion to use my weapon and hope to God I never do. But, if someone should ever threaten me, or my family, I will not hesitate to defend us.

So if anyone is down my way, come on over for a visit. My promise to you.....you won't even know I carrying and you may even like me even if I am one of those gun nuts. Pappy


----------



## MrJim (Jul 11, 2014)

SeaBreeze said:


> I absolutely disagree, that is very untrue, IMO.



A "responsible gun owner" is always looked upon that way until the day comes when they either accidentally shoot someone, accidentally allow their kid to get ahold of their gun & shoot themselves or someone else, or they snap & go on a shooting rampage.

Then, they are suddenly no longer considered a "responsible gun owner".


----------



## SeaBreeze (Jul 11, 2014)

Pappy said:


> I am certainly never going to change anyone's mind about concealed carry and I have no intention of doing so.
> my story: I am 76 years old and have handled guns all my life. I was brought up in the country where hunting was a way of life. In the service I fired 3.5 rocket launchers, pistols, rifles, hand grenades, and 30 cal machine guns. Ok, enough of that.
> 
> in Florida, I do have a concealed weapons permit and do carry either my Kel-tec 9 mm or .380 pocket gun.  So far, I haven't shot any innocent people or run around like a nut scaring the hell out of people. I do not, or have not, had the occasion to use my weapon and hope to God I never do. But, if someone should ever threaten me, or my family, I will not hesitate to defend us.
> ...



I don't have a concealed gun permit yet Pappy, but may decide to get one sometime in the future.  However, if I'm walking out in the deep woods somewhere, I'll have an open carry gun for protection against animals or lunatics.  I've also had a loaded gun in the house ready to go for any emergency, and in all my years I thankfully have not had the need to use it.  If someone comes into my home to threaten, rape or kill me or my family, I will not hesitate to kill them first.  I will not be a victim if I can prevent it.


----------



## Ina (Jul 11, 2014)

That's the way we see it too Sea. :tapfoot:


----------



## SeaBreeze (Jul 11, 2014)

Mr. Jim, I'm wise enough to know that those with your thoughts on the subject are not likely to ever change your views.  I'm not trying to change your personal views or opinions on gun control, and I respect your right to have them.

The majority of the gun crimes are done by criminals, gangs, mentally disturbed people on medications, etc.  Law-abiding citizens should be able to protect themselves if they are threatened by these characters.



> Gun-free zones have been the most popular response to previous mass killings. But many law-enforcement officials say they are actually counterproductive.
> 
> “Guns are already banned in schools. That is why the shootings happen in schools. A school is a ‘helpless-victim zone,’” says Richard Mack, a former Arizona sheriff. “Preventing any adult at a school from having access to a firearm eliminates any chance the killer can be stopped in time to prevent a rampage,”
> Jim Kouri, the public-information officer of the National Association of Chiefs of Police, told me earlier this year at the time of the Aurora, Colo., Batman-movie shooting.
> ...


----------



## Justme (Jul 11, 2014)

One day the US might wise up and see that the more guns that are in circulation the more gun crimes there will be, but I won't hold my breath!


----------



## SeaBreeze (Jul 11, 2014)

MrJim said:


> A "responsible gun owner" is always looked upon that way until the day comes when they either accidentally shoot someone, accidentally allow their kid to get ahold of their gun & shoot themselves or someone else, or they snap & go on a shooting rampage.
> 
> Then, they are suddenly no longer considered a "responsible gun owner".



A responsible gun owner does none of those things, they don't accidentally shoot people, they are well trained in safety.  They teach their children to respect guns and when they're old enough, the proper way to use them, handle them, clean them, etc.  Responsible gun owners do not snap and go on shooting rampages.


----------



## MrJim (Jul 11, 2014)

SeaBreeze said:


> A responsible gun owner does none of those things, they don't accidentally shoot people, they are well trained in safety.  They teach their children to respect guns and when they're old enough, the proper way to use them, handle them, clean them, etc.  Responsible gun owners do not snap and go on shooting rampages.



Sorry to say this, but I think maybe you have been misinformed about that.

You could try telling all that to the former wife of this policeman if she were still alive. But she isn't.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/child-shoots-kills-tenn-deputys-wife-at-weekend-cookout/

Now tell me this... if anyone could be considered a "responsible gun owner", it would be a deputy sheriff, would it not? And yet, despite all his training, he manages to allow his own 4 y/o child to pick up a loaded gun, right under his nose, then shoot & kill his wife, who was also the child's mother.

So much for the supposedly "guaranteed" safety of guns in the hands of those "responsible gun owners", eh?

Or what about this guy? A 71 y/o ex-police officer who shot & killed a young father inside a movie theater for texting his baby sitter??

http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/13/justice/florida-movie-theater-shooting/

Was he considered a " responsible gun owner" prior to murdering a man in front of his wife for nothing?

Then, there are all those cases all across the country, where some kid manages to get ahold of mom or dad's gun & get caught with it at school or even worse, accidentally shoots another child. Happens all the time.

That Adam Lanza kid who massacred all those little tykes at Sandy Hook, got the guns he used from his "responsible gun owner" mother, who he killed prior to going on his rampage. This woman, a highly trained target shooter, knowing her son was mentally disturbed, allowed him to gain access to the guns in her home. Prior to her son's murderous act, she would've been considered by you & every other gun advocate to be a "responsible gun owner".

The truth is, every person you can name who has gone on a mass shooting spree, had no prior criminal record & was either a legal gun owner, or was the child of a legal gun owner who somehow allowed their guns to accessed. There is no way of knowing who will someday go off the deep end & start shooting up some public place no matter how responsible they may seem.

The guy who just massacred his wife's family in Texas had no prior criminal record either, so I'm sorry to say it, but your claim that only criminals use guns to shoot people, or that responsible gun owners don't snap & go on shooting rampages is just incorrect.

Every "responsible gun owner" is either a potential possible murderer, or a potential enabler of one, whether he or she thinks they are or not. 

It can happen anywhere to anyone at any time.

That is reality.


----------



## MrJim (Jul 11, 2014)

SeaBreeze said:


> Mr. Jim, I'm wise enough to know that those with your thoughts on the subject are not likely to ever change your views.  I'm not trying to change your personal views or opinions on gun control, and I respect your right to have them.
> 
> The majority of the gun crimes are done by criminals, gangs, mentally disturbed people on medications, etc.  Law-abiding citizens should be able to protect themselves if they are threatened by these characters.



And what happens when half the public is walking around armed & the bullets start flying as they try to protect themselves from these criminals, but miss & accidentally hit some bystander? What happens when their bullets pass through the bad guy & kill the person standing behind them? What happens when the criminal surprises the legal gun owner & takes their gun away from them? What about all the guns being stolen from gun stores by criminals because the stupid store owners leave their inventory sitting in glass display cases rather than locking them up in a safe overnight? 

I hear a lot of talk about responsible gun owners, yet I keep on hearing about their irresponsible actions.

Guns are dangerous no matter whose hands they are in & mistakes happen no matter how responsible one tries to be.


----------



## Ina (Jul 11, 2014)

Mr. Jim, As it turns out, the man that killed the family of six turned out not to be the father, but the ex-brother-law of the mother. The killer was looking for his ex-wife, so the killer tied up his ex-sister and brother-in-law, all five of their children and shot them all. Only the oldest daughter survived. 

We have now learned his own family were afraid of him and had restraining orders out on him. He did have a history violence.

What would you have done if this had happened to you? How would you have protected yourself?


----------



## MrJim (Jul 11, 2014)

Ina said:


> Mr. Jim, As it turns out, the man that killed the family of six turned out not to be the father, but the ex-brother-law of the mother. The killer was looking for his ex-wife, so the killer tied up his ex-sister and brother-in-law, all five of their children and shot them all. Only the oldest daughter survived.
> 
> We have now learned his own family were afraid of him and had restraining orders out on him. He did have a history violence.
> 
> What would you have done if this had happened to you? How would you have protected yourself?



Yes, I know he was not the father, he was an in law or something.

And whatever his history of violence was, I don't think he was a "known criminal" or a gangster, etc.

But that's not my point. My point is that gun advocates continually talk about how there are too many laws aimed at "responsible gun owners", when in reality, there is no way of knowing who " responsible gun owners" are & who lacks the common sense to be trusted with one in their home. They talk about" responsible gun owners" as if they have some kind of identifiable characteristic that one can look at & determine that they won't do something stupid one day. And we all know that most people are, at least occasionally, stupid. There is no way to know who is responsible & who isn't or who won't lose their marbles some day & stop being " responsible gun owners".

The problem is that there are too many damned guns floating around in society today & they are too easy to get.

I have no problem whatsoever with actual "responsible gun owners" owning guns, but the problem is that there is no way of knowing who those people are. You're always considered a good boy until you screw up.

If they ever come up with a reliable way to predict who will own their guns for a lifetime with no issues & who won't, I & every other American who is concerned with the gun problem will stop worrying & the gun lovers can just cover themselves with as many guns as they can carry for all we'll care.

And as far as what I'd do in that situation? What could anybody do? I don't think he called those people & warned them to be ready for him. They were probably totally surprised by him & even if they'd had a dozen guns in the house, would likely not have been able to get to them. How many gun owners walk around the house strapped or locked & loaded all day long?


----------



## Pappy (Jul 11, 2014)

Mr. Jim.... I certainly respect your opinion on us gun owners, but why stop at guns? How about people that commit crimes with knives, scissors, etc. How about adults that don't restrain their children in a car seat or do not use seat belts. Aren't they being irresponsible also? 

I know now that we can come up with all kinds of what ifs and no one will win this debate. If you feel up to it, check with Floridas Concealed Forum. Maybe when you see the thousands of CW permits you might have a better understanding where I'm coming from..Pappy


----------



## Misty (Jul 11, 2014)

Many times in gun free zones, the killers keep firing and killing people until the police come on the scene. And then the killings stop, and the killer kills himself. If the armed police had not arrived, they would keep shooting, and many of them had 
 the ammunition to take even more lives. In gun free zones, people are used as targets and the killers don't even know the people they are shooting.  They are helpless victims. 

That's why gun free zones are so attractive to killers. There are many instances in the newspaper where people have knives as weapons in a store, and another customer has a gun and shows it, and the would be killer drops his knife, and lives are saved. There are many stories in the news about gun owners saving lives.


----------



## Meanderer (Jul 11, 2014)

What scares me are angry people with guns.  People who have no self control and fly off the handle.  Not to mention drugs and alcohol, and medication or lack of it.  These folks should not touch a gun with a 10 foot pole!


----------



## Happyflowerlady (Jul 11, 2014)

With the bad economy and so many towns and cities now having financial problems; they are often having to make cutbacks on their budgets.    This can result in less money to pay for adequate law enforcement. Many times, people have died, or a crime has been committed simply because the law enforcement cannot get to crime scenes fast enough. 
I totally believe in calling for police help in an emergency, but sometimes just having a weapon to protect your self and your family can make the difference whether you live or die.

Even the police are now advising people in some areas that they need to take measures to protect their homes, and a weapon for self-defence. Here is one example, and this is for a large area in Florida.

http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/mia...nts-arm-themselves-after-possible-budget-cuts


----------



## Misty (Jul 11, 2014)

There seems to be such a lack of respect for lives, and some I think  comes from some of the Very Violent movies and video games on the market  today. People are becoming desensitized to violence. The recent  killings at the school and theater, were by killers who spent large  parts of their days playing these games, which are very realistic..

Chicago had the strictest gun laws untill recently and the most murders, and now they have the most restrictive rules for getting a conceal carry license. In many states, after conceal carry went into effect, crime rates dropped.


----------



## MrJim (Jul 11, 2014)

Re: blaming gun free zones for gun violence... does anyone really believe that some crazy person who knows he's going to be dead by the time his rampage is over, cares one iota about whether or not some people there might have guns???

Gun free zone or not, nobody knows whether or not there might be one or more people inside that have guns in spite of the official policy, especially given that most of them do not employ metal detectors. Just because some sign says "Gun Free Zone" does not mean that some people won't carry guns there anyway. Hell, look at all the guns the TSA confiscates from people trying to board airplanes with them.

Does anyone think these people sit & reason things like that? These mass shooters are not career criminals or gang members out looking to rob people. They are unstable goof balls or just poor slobs who feel like they've been pissed on by life & are now pissed off to the point of murderous rage. 

And the idea that elementary schools should NOT be gun-free is just nuts in my mind. If kids today have to go to schools where their teachers are packing heat or where there are armed security guards walking around like in the Tel Aviv Airport, then we have gone waayyyy too far in the wrong direction.

But the real thing about blaming gun free zones for gun violence that flummoxes me is this... if guns weren't as freely available as they are & if our country weren't drowning in them, there wouldn't be a problem. Excessive gun violence is the fault of having an excessive number of guns, not the fault of places that don't want them there.

Blaming gun free zones for gun violence is like blaming 7 Elevens for convenience store robberies.


----------



## MrJim (Jul 11, 2014)

Misty said:


> Many times in gun free zones, the killers keep firing and killing people until the police come on the scene. And then the killings stop, and the killer kills himself. If the armed police had not arrived, they would keep shooting, and many of them had
> the ammunition to take even more lives. In gun free zones, people are used as targets and the killers don't even know the people they are shooting.  They are helpless victims.
> 
> That's why gun free zones are so attractive to killers. *There are many instances in the newspaper where people have knives as weapons in a store, and another customer has a gun and shows it, and the would be killer drops his knife, and lives are saved. There are many stories in the news about gun owners saving lives.*



Would like to see a few if you have them.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Jul 11, 2014)

Misty said:


> There seems to be such a lack of respect for lives, and some I think  comes from some of the Very Violent movies and video games on the market  today. People are becoming desensitized to violence. The recent  killings at the school and theater, were by killers who spent large  parts of their days playing these games, which are very realistic..
> 
> Chicago had the strictest gun laws untill recently and the most murders, and now they have the most restrictive rules for getting a conceal carry license. In many states, after conceal carry went into effect, crime rates dropped.



I agree Misty, it's a known fact that when criminals know they may have to deal with armed citizens, they go elsewhere.  The video games, and the lack of family values do contribute to behavior like this, not to mention the mind-altering prescription drugs that these people have been on since they were kids, and labeled as having ADD, etc.  As I said I don't conceal carry, but I know it's a crime deterrent...http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/07/09/murder-drops-as-concealed-carry-permits-rise-claims-study/


----------



## MrJim (Jul 11, 2014)

Pappy said:


> Mr. Jim.... I certainly respect your opinion on us gun owners, but why stop at guns? How about people that commit crimes with knives, scissors, etc. How about adults that don't restrain their children in a car seat or do not use seat belts. Aren't they being irresponsible also?
> 
> I know now that we can come up with all kinds of what ifs and no one will win this debate. If you feel up to it, check with Floridas Concealed Forum. Maybe when you see the thousands of CW permits you might have a better understanding where I'm coming from..Pappy



Calling gun owners who leave their guns where kids can get them irresponsible, is totally legitimate. 

And the knives & scissors thing is a red herring. There is no epidemic of knife & scissor crime. People are not committing mass murders in schools & theaters, etc. with knives & scissors. You can't point a knife or a pair of scissors at a group of people 40 or 50 feet away from you & kill them with a squeeze of your finger.

But as for your question about adults not restraining their kids with car seats... of course they are irresponsible. But how is that relevant? How does their irresponsibility excuse the irresponsibility of gun owners who don't lock their guns in a safe, or of gun store owners who don't do the same after closing up at night? 

And FYI, I live in Florida. Have lived here most of my life. Florida has a high crime rate. Orlando is becoming one of the most violent cities in the country. Mostly gun crime. And all those CW's aren't doing anything to bring it down.

Guns are the most dangerous small arms weapons known to man. Nothing else makes killing as easy & convenient as a gun. They are in a class by themselves & deserve to be treated & regarded as such.


----------



## MrJim (Jul 11, 2014)

SeaBreeze said:


> I agree Misty, *it's a known fact that when criminals know they may have to deal with armed citizens, they go elsewhere.*  The video games, and the lack of family values do contribute to behavior like this, not to mention the mind-altering prescription drugs that these people have been on since they were kids, and labeled as having ADD, etc.  As I said I don't conceal carry, but I know it's a crime deterrent...http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/07/09/murder-drops-as-concealed-carry-permits-rise-claims-study/



Can you cite some examples of cases where criminals have gone elsewhere because they knew people were carrying guns?

Where are these places where many people are known to be carrying guns?


----------



## Misty (Jul 11, 2014)

MrJim said:


> Would like to see a few if you have them.



*White House Study Finds Guns Save Lives: “Consistently Lower Injury Rates Among Gun Using Crime Victims”*


              Mac Slavo
         June 27th, 2013



 




Though statistics prove time and again that disarming a free people leads to more violent crime and the potential for mass government democide, it hasn’t stopped President Barrack Obama and his Congressional entourage from doing everything in their power to make it more difficult for Americans to legally own firearms.
Citing the Sandy Hook mass shooting last year, democrats on the hill have claimed that we must restrict gun ownership and strip the Second Amendment for the safety of our children and the general public.
But a new report commissioned by the White House titled _Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-related Violence_ suggests what many self defense gun proponents have been saying for years. The report, ordered under one of President Obama’s 23 Executive Orders signed in the wake of the Sandy Hook incident, asked the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the National Research Council and other federal agencies to identify the “most pressing problems in firearms violence.”
To the surprise of the authors and those who would no doubt have used the report to further restrict access to personal defense firearms, the study found that *gun ownership actually saves lives and those who have a firearm at their disposal improve their chances of survival* and reduce their chance of injury in the event they are confronted by a violent criminal:Almost all national survey estimates indicate that *defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals*, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year…
…
The estimate of *3 million defensive uses per year* is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The *former estimate of 108,000* is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.
A different issue is whether defensive use of guns, however numerous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gun wielding crime victim. Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender)* have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self protective strategies.*
_Full Study available at the National Academy of Sciences
_
_Via: Blacklisted News / Story Leak_​Consider that 3 million people use a gun to defend themselves from harm every year. This means that over *8,000 Americans every day* act with potentially deadly force to prevent injury or death to themselves or a family member.
In addition to overwhelming evidence that owning a gun reduces your chances of injury when attacked, regardless of whether you fire your gun or not, the new report proves that there has been a decades’ long obfuscation of national statistics that have been used to determine the importance of guns in self defense. Up until this study became available, anti-gun politicians often cited figures that indicated that just 108,000 people a year used guns in self defense. The new study suggests that *those numbers were off by over 2500%*.
The new White House report coupled with evidence from Australia, Britain and Canada shows that reduction of personal gun ownership is a road to more violence, injury and death.
The President commissioned this study in the hopes of finding a reason to take more guns from law abiding Americans.
What it found, however, is that the answer to gun violence in America is… *arming more Ameri*cans

Since the White House Study showing guns save lives is only one article and you wanted a few of them, please go to the google search engine, Jim, and type in "Gun Owners Save Lives" and you will be able to read 46,700,000 articles about it.


----------



## Warrigal (Jul 11, 2014)

This discussion puzzles me. All schools in Australia are de facto gun free zones. There's no sign that says  they are because no sign is needed. Why would anyone except a police officer enter a school with a loaded gun? Why would anyone take on into a shopping mall, a church or a movie theatre. What is wrong with a society that thinks it is a reasonable thing to do?

In my whole life I don't recall anyone shooting up a classroom although I do remember one occasion where a man took a teacher and her class hostage as part of a domestic dispute. It was ended peacefully by the police. We did have a mass shooting in a shopping mall once but that was before Howard's national gun laws. Churches, mosques and synagogues are sometimes subject to vandalism and arson, but again no shoot-ups.

Given the different histories of our two countries, I could say that it is obvious that a lack of guns is much more protective than concealed carry. People who think otherwise are not looking far enough abroad to see what happens in other countries, nor are they looking closely enough at the gun worshipping culture at home.

And to make things clear, Australia is not a gun free society. We have legal gun owners and illegal ones too. We have gun crime as well. We just have a lot less of all of them, not just overall but per capita as well. A lot less.


----------



## MrJim (Jul 12, 2014)

Misty said:


> *White House Study Finds Guns Save Lives: “Consistently Lower Injury Rates Among Gun Using Crime Victims”*
> 
> 
> Mac Slavo
> ...



That's all well & good, but it completely ignores the obvious fact that if there weren't so many readily available guns floating around to begin with, it wouldn't be anywhere near as necessary to walk around armed or to be put in the position of having to use a gun to defend yourself.

I also wonder how many of those cases of guns being used for self defense were drug dealers who used a gun to defend themselves from some other rival drug dealer or random thug trying to rip off their money & drugs.

But all that aside, it does not change the fact that America is the gun violence capital of the world.



> U.S. gun-rights advocates are correct in their assertion that global evidence isn’t immediately compelling when it comes to the link between levels of gun ownership and homicide. And most studies of previous U.S. gun legislation suggest a limited impact on rates of violence. It turns out that’s the wrong set of questions. *The international evidence is clear that it takes more than guns to cause high crime rates, yet guns enable both intentional and unintentional violence, and large, lightly regulated gun sales lead to more homicides throughout the Americas.*
> 
> You don’t have to get very far in Stephen Pinker’s history of violence, The Better Angels of Our Nature, to find ample support for the idea that there’s more to homicide than the prevalence of firearms. In precivilization, as many as 15 percent of all deaths were violent—inflicted by weapons as simple as a stone. Even today, the strongest relationship to homicide rates around the world involves overall levels of economic development, inequality, and social cohesion rather than gun prevalence.
> 
> ...



http://mobile.businessweek.com/articles/2013-01-13/guns-dont-kill-people-gun-culture-does


----------



## rkunsaw (Jul 12, 2014)

MrJim, if you don't want a gun you have the right not to have one. As for me I have the right to have one and I have plenty of them.

I hope you are never attacked by someone intending harm, but if you are feel free to dial 911. Of course the police won't arrive in time to prevent the violence but they can investigate and try to find out who killed you.


----------



## Justme (Jul 12, 2014)

No one should have the right to own a gun for protection!


----------



## rkunsaw (Jul 12, 2014)

> No one should have the right to own a gun for protection!



So if you are attacked you should just cower down and let it happen?  You would make the perfect victim.


----------



## Davey Jones (Jul 12, 2014)

*I wonder what would have really happened if everyone in that theatre had a gun.
*


----------



## MrJim (Jul 12, 2014)

*I wonder what would have really happened if everyone in that theatre had a gun.

*I bet I can guess... a bunch of John Wayne & Bruce Willis wannabes would have whipped out their guns & started firing at everything that moved, probably upping the death toll to twice what it was.


----------



## Warrigal (Jul 12, 2014)

Collateral damage in the crossfire?


----------



## hollydolly (Jul 13, 2014)

Sorry if I'm appearing dense here but why on earth would anyone feel it necessary..legal or not, to take a gun into a supermarket? How is it that people feel they need to protect themselves while buying bread?

This is appalling. 

Here in the UK we have legal gun owners, but if anyone were to walk into a supermarket/school /or public place  carrying one they'd be arrested on the spot!!


----------



## SeaBreeze (Jul 13, 2014)

Davey Jones said:


> *I wonder what would have really happened if everyone in that theatre had a gun.
> *



They would have killed this guy before he shot all those people, instead of playing games with him after the fact now, with repeated mental evaluations, etc., just stalling before a trial.  We would save a lot of taxpayer money (and innocent lives), if this lunatic was taken out that night, by someone with a concealed carry license.



hollydolly said:


> Sorry if I'm appearing dense here but why on earth would anyone feel it necessary..legal or not, to take a gun into a supermarket?



Responsible citizens who have a legal concealed carry permit, will carry their firearms with them wherever they go.  If a criminal goes into that store and threatens to shoot someone with the gun he bought off the street from a gang member, then all the customers would be grateful that someone was present to stop him, before he did any harm...I know I would!


----------



## MrJim (Jul 14, 2014)

SeaBreeze said:


> They would have killed this guy before he shot all those people, instead of playing games with him after the fact now, with repeated mental evaluations, etc., just stalling before a trial.  We would save a lot of taxpayer money (and innocent lives), if this lunatic was taken out that night, by someone with a concealed carry license.
> 
> Responsible citizens who have a legal concealed carry permit, will carry their firearms with them wherever they go.  If a criminal goes into that store and threatens to shoot someone with the gun he bought off the street from a gang member, then all the customers would be grateful that someone was present to stop him, before he did any harm...I know I would!



Yes & the idea that the bullets fired by a "responsible gun owner" could ever go astray, miss or pass thru their intended target then go ricocheting around, eventually striking somebody else, is just inconcievable, isn't it?

Because that NEVER happens on TV or in the movies.

Y'know... where reality is always portrayed so accurately.

The thought of a dozen or so "responsible gun owners" whipping out their side arms in a crowded public place & opening fire scares me as much as the thought of one maniac doing so.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Jul 14, 2014)

It's not inconceivable Mr. Jim, but IMO not likely, and I would take my chances.  I'd much rather have an armed citizen or even an armed security guard use their weapons to kill the crazed maniac.  We fear different things, and that's okay, we're different people.  I fear the maniac alone using the theater as a shooting gallery.

I think we're just going back and forth on this, and as I've said before I'm just giving my own opinion and thoughts, and I don't want or need to change anyone else's mind about gun control.  So let's just agree to disagree, I respect your right to your own opinion, as you should respect mine.


----------



## Davey Jones (Jul 14, 2014)

MrJim said:


> *I wonder what would have really happened if everyone in that theatre had a gun.*



I bet I can guess... a bunch of John Wayne & Bruce Willis wannabes would have whipped out their guns & started firing at everything that moved, probably upping the death toll to twice what it was.


Thats what I was thinking too,if all this happened yesterday then its practically a guarantee more would have been killed by (ahem) accident.  Now ya know why some of these stores dont want gun in their stores.


----------



## SifuPhil (Jul 14, 2014)

I've always thought it slightly odd that a person would rather allow a shooter free reign than to have an armed fellow citizen come to their aid.

My way of thinking on situations such as this, in order of preference:



Be armed myself
Have a cop nearby
Have an armed citizen nearby
Be unarmed myself but attempt to take down the bad guy
Stand there and pray

It's usually the latter that end up as statistics ... 

A few things I've learned in almost 40 years of teaching self-defense - 



You never, EVER think that help is on the way
You never, EVER depend upon the mercy of the shooter
You take - and are forever grateful for - whatever help happens to appear
Even a sheep can learn to use their teeth


----------



## JustBonee (Jul 14, 2014)

I agree with your points Phil. ..  BUT I wouldn't STAND there.  ..   depends on the situation of course, but if in a flurry of activity (shooting) and not armed .. I would fall down immediately and play dead ...  
Seems to work in some situations, especially where the shooter is going for 'numbers'..
And being down could help your percentages, especially  if a barrage of bullets are flying through the air.


----------



## SifuPhil (Jul 14, 2014)

Totally agree, Bonnie. If you can't escape then play dead.

Problem is - and you never know until it actually happens - oftentimes in a stressful scenario such as this we freeze up like deer caught in headlights - our head tells us to move but our body refuses, so we just stand there like silhouette targets. For the lucky ones this only lasts a second or two, but for the unlucky ones it can last forever.


----------



## Meanderer (Jul 14, 2014)

With the tsunami of publicity given to these incidents, we tend to think they happen every day in every city, but they don't.  We should be familiar enough with the places we shop, to have a plan of escape.  Employee only doors, rear and side exits, etc. to go to and exit or wait. A contingency plan can go a long way, to keeping you safe.


----------



## JustBonee (Jul 14, 2014)

Meanderer said:


> With the tsunami of publicity given to these incidents, we tend to think they happen every day in every city, but they don't. We should be familiar enough with the places we shop, to have a plan of escape. Employee only doors, rear and side exits, etc. to go to and exit or wait. A contingency plan can go a long way, to keeping you safe.



True that ... the forum members reading this in other countries must think the US has become the Wild, Wild West all over again. 
_It's not really that bad._ 
I actually go for a walk every morning.. unarmed. . ... cell phone and walkman in hand, and come across some very nice and friendly people.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Jul 14, 2014)

Bonnie said:


> True that ... the forum members reading this in other countries must think the US has become the Wild, Wild West all over again.
> _It's not really that bad._
> I actually go for a walk every morning.. unarmed. . ... cell phone and walkman in hand, and come across some very nice and friendly people.



I agree Bonnie, it's not bad at all, and I wouldn't want to live anywhere else.  I don't carry a gun, and take walks alone on trails, in parks and do what I have to do in the city.  I see many nice folks that I say hello to or nod when they pass, it's all good.  I do live near the theater shooting, and have seen movies there in the past and will continue to do so without fear.  I'd rather live here in a country where I can have my freedoms, and just be aware of my surroundings.  I'm in my 60s, so I've been doing just fine so far. :thumbsup:


----------



## MrJim (Jul 14, 2014)

SifuPhil said:


> I've always thought it slightly odd that a person would rather allow a shooter free reign than to have an armed fellow citizen come to their aid.
> 
> My way of thinking on situations such as this, in order of preference:
> 
> ...



My way of thinking... stay home at night.

Better yet, some supernatural power magically makes all guns disappear for good.

The world would be a better place.

The govt should have placed restrictions on the number of guns that could be manufactured & sold in this country about 50 years ago.


----------



## SifuPhil (Jul 15, 2014)

MrJim said:


> My way of thinking... stay home at night.



That works, too - it's what I do.



> Better yet, some supernatural power magically makes all guns disappear for good.



I won't hold my breath on that one ...



> The world would be a better place.



Would it? Or would we just see mass slayings performed with knives and clubs? 



> The govt should have placed restrictions on the number of guns that could be manufactured & sold in this country about 50 years ago.



Perhaps, but what is done is done - we have to figure out how to solve the problem as it is now. I would suggest much harder licensing requirements (including psych evals), more stringent training (especially in securing your firearms) and massive fines for not following the rules.


----------

