Home > Debate Club > Does the Colorado Shooting Prove the Need for More Gun Control Laws? > Guns Defend Good People From Bad People

Guns Defend Good People From Bad People

One tragic massacre does not warrant the disarmament of all law-abiding citizens

Reader Comments
Back to argument

"The writer would not support any restriction on his freedom to obtain however many assault weapons and high capacity magazines he wants. This is echoed in many of the comments."

Harold, I've read your posts in amazement. You seem to be unable to understand the issue at all. One example is a quote (above) from one of your comments. Ignoring the fact that "assault weapons" does not mean what you seem to think it means, please answer me this: Do you think the author is likely to shoot more people if he owned, say, 100 centerfire semi automatic rifles than if he owned, say 2? Knowing Gene, I am certain the answer is none in either case, for Holmes, the numbers would be exactly the same no matter how many rifles he purchased. So there's a big red herring you present.

And how do the figures you quote about NYPD prove your point? You say "The average number of shots fired is 5." But often, that will result in no hits at all, the gunman having thrown down his weapon. And saying that the idea of 80% misses is preposterous merely proves that you have no idea a) how badly the average officer is trained and b) how your skills rapidly depart as adrenaline flows. And who cares if it's 20% or 27% anyway? The average victim defending himself against, say, three attackers with a ten round magazine is severely handicapped. Especially as, as you people so often forget, THE CRIMINAL WILL IGNORE THE LAW and have whatever size magazines he can steal or buy on the black market.

In the Republic of Ireland it is illegal to belong to the IRA and a capital offense (although the death penalty has not been enforced for some time) to even possess a handgun. It never stopped the IRA from mounting cross border raids, blowing up pubs and discos, shooting informers and so forth. Really, if you haven't fixed the problem after passing 22,000 laws, how do you plan to do it with the next one?

Glock22Fan of CA 5:02PM July 30, 2012

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

The U.S. city with the most restrictive gun laws in the nation, Washington, D.C., has the highest murder rate at 24 per 100,000. The state with the most unrestrictive gun regulations, Vermont, has the lowest murder rate at 0.48 per 100,000.

Bruce of CA 8:45PM July 29, 2012

I still see you hiding behind anonymity and not answering questions that are slow-pitched right across the plate easy to answer. That screams Brady to me, entrenched, deceptive, afraid - and most importantly, waiting for the government to take responsibility for your right to be free and safe. Weak sauce...

Jason Porter of CA 5:06PM July 29, 2012

Racist, ageist...what's next? Homophobic? Disability discriminator? Some of you fellows are really out there! This has been interesting debating here, thank you again to US News and World Report.

Harold J of MN 4:27PM July 29, 2012

Mr. Hoffman, again, where are you getting your data? The best I can tell, NYPD last reported "hit rates" in 2006, when the rate was 27-30%, not "below 20%." In any event, your claim assumes that effective self-defense requires hits. Even if the NYPD hit rate is as low as you say, the actual statistics from the NYPD reports amply demonstrate that officers are effectively defending themselves with very few rounds fired and even fewer hits. I've already answered your question about AR-15 use by police officers. Lastly, every firearm is lethal and has the potential to be misused. I disagree that means no firearm should be regulated. The difference between an M1 Carbine and M1 Garand is continuity of fire (a factor which has been cited in upholding assault weapon laws.) I would not want to be shot by either weapon, or any other firearm for that matter.

Harold J of MN 3:58PM July 29, 2012

May have been?! You think gun control MAY HAVE BEEN a product of racism? LOL, go read a book man. Preferably one about history, written by someone who graduated high school.

Jason Porter of CA 3:14PM July 29, 2012

FAIL. Still waiting Mr Anonymous...

Jason Porter of CA 3:12PM July 29, 2012

Mr. Porter, it was you who insinuated racism for advocating regulation of assault weapons and high capacity magazines, because other gun control laws may have been motivated by racism. That is as silly as saying that if you support the second amendment, you're comfortable being aligned with slave owners who wanted to keep guns out of the hands of slaves. Thank you for your input anyway.

Harold J of MN 3:10PM July 29, 2012

The NYPD hit rate is generally below 20%. Assuming a self defense stop requires two hits then a civilian less trained than NYPD hopes she's only facing one attacker if she only has 10 rounds.

I'm wildly amused that you defend the M1 Garand but not the less powerful AR-15 or M1 Carbine. The M1 Garand is actually a high powered "assault weapon" actually used by front line forces to invade foreign countries. The AR-15 isn't dangerous enough for modern front line forces. They use the M-16 or M-4 in select fire.

You continue to not answer why we should allow regular police officers to use AR-15's but they remain "too much" for citizens.

Are AR-15's just frightening to you while the Garand is not? I know that if I had a choice, I'd prefer to take a round from an AR-15 rather than the Garand. The M-16, which the AR-15 is a cousin of, was designed to wound while the Garand was designed to kill. Each reflects a differing military priority of it's time. Why are you so supportive of the far more powerful and lethal Garand? I mean you don't need a Garand.... (sarcasm intended.)

I have a hunch there is an inherent ageism in this conversation. Going wildly out on a limb I expect that you, Howard J, are over 40 while those who prefer AR-15's to the Garand are under 40. Advocating a government legislating your aesthetic preferences while abridging civil rights is hubris that would allow the same government to outlaw your preferences too.

Gene Hoffman of CA 2:53PM July 29, 2012

I asked you several questions Harold. You chose to answer exactly none of them. Obviously I'm fighting a battle of wits with the unarmed. I am done with this debate, since it really isn't one if you refuse to participate in a two way dialog. Luckily I'm a Libertarian, so what you say really doesn't mean anything to me, and what I say probably doesn't mean much to you. And respecting that peacefully through self-regulation should be the only regulation we as a people have to endure.

As for what you are unaware of, that is not my problem. Disarming and regulating the natural right to keep and bear arms worked out great for Stalin, Pol Pot and Hitler. I'll not be disarmed, nor choose to live as a slave. Arbitrarily choosing a number of rounds for a magazine, or the appropriate length of a barrel or buttstock is how the government incrementally erodes at our freedom and makes gun owners like yourself forget the real reason we are supposed to be free of infringement.

BTW, you asked how I feel being on the side of the guy who wrote the second amendment.

1) Fine, it was written by committee through a Constitutional Convention. Not by one man, and therefore not necessarily by a slaveowner.

2) The 2nd Amendment doesn't specify race, just that my rights are non-infringeable.

3) As an adversary asking me that question, it seems to indicate that you are not on the side of the 2nd Amendment. Especially given the facts I just shared with you. Which leads me again to believe you are a Brady in training.

Jason Porter of CA 2:27PM July 29, 2012

<1 2 3 4 .. 10 >