http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,315563,00.html

gun free Utopian society is not just a dream it's a reality

Well, yesterday I read it was an SKS.

Today it's the dreaded, lethal, scary, AK-47.

Gun ban here we come!

Here is interesting part about it.

"Forty states have broad right-to-carry laws, but even within these states it is the "gun-free zones," not other public places, where the attacks happen.

People know the list: Virginia Tech saw 32 murdered earlier this year; the Columbine High School shooting left 13 murdered in 1999; Luby's Cafeteria in Killeen, Texas, had 23 who were fatally shot by a deranged man in 1991; and a McDonald's in Southern California had 21 people shot dead by an unemployed security guard in 1984.

All these attacks — indeed, all attacks involving more than a small number of people being killed — happened in gun-free zones.

In recent years, similar attacks have occurred across the world, including in Australia, France, Germany and Britain. Do all these countries lack enough gun-control laws? Hardly. The reverse is more accurate.

The law-abiding, not criminals, are obeying the rules. Disarming the victims simply means that the killers have less to fear. As Wednesday's attack demonstrated yet again, police are important, but they almost always arrive at the crime scene after the crime has occurred.

The longer it takes for someone to arrive on the scene with a gun, the more people who will be harmed by such an attack.

Most people understand that guns deter criminals. If a killer were stalking your family, would you feel safer putting a sign out front announcing, "This Home Is a Gun-Free Zone"? But that is what the Westroads Mall did."

The war on guns would work about as good as the war on drugs.

The problem is only the law abiding citizens obey the law. A a result you get incidents like yesterday and the Luby's in Killeen.

http://www.texags.com/main/forum.reply.asp?topic_id=1036771&forum_id=25



[This message has been edited by AggieChemist (edited 12/6/2007 2:25p).]

I bet it was actually a WASR...

How was Luby's a weapons free zone? Not that I disagree with the point, but I cant think of one reason you couldn't legally carry into a Luby's.

CS,
Pre CHL

Ok, that's better.

I too have carried in "gun-free" zones and will continue. I have carried in malls, churches, and even movie theaters. I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

When seconds matter the police are just minutes away.

prayers sent.
The liberals will be the ones exploiting this for their agenda. As conservatives, we are better than that.

quote:

---

The liberals will be the ones exploiting this for their agenda. As conservatives, we are better than that.

---

That's exactly what this thread is doing.

CS,

This is the second time i've seen you post on Texags where your point was contrary to a basic understanding of the law, particularly gun possession and usage. If I recall, off the top of my head, the previous instance was regards the shooter in Pasadena (Mr Horn?).

are you not a cop? should I not be somewhat concerned that you're less familiar with the law than I seem to be?

(I understand that you may be too young to know about the Luby's incident. If so, disregard. However, please know that armed law-abiding citizens are your friend, 99.9% of the time. and please don't ask us to rely on you as a preventative measure. you are, after all, a "mop up after the fact" measure, in 99% of the cases...)

Yes I was 9 when the Luby's shooting happened so forgive me for not realizing there were no CHL laws then. Second, the Pasadena shooting was something that I hadn't even looked at since the academy, and so stated, after closley looking into it I realized that I was wrong, and said that. The Pasadena shooting was a rare case, and not something a beat cop comes across very often. I just find it interesting to discuss some of these things here. I have never said to rely on the Police as a prevenative measure, there are not enough of us (especially in CS) to be very prevenative. Here's a web page I love that will better explain my feelings on CHL holders (which I wish there were more of):
http://www.killology.com/sheep_dog.htm

[This message has been edited by CS Five-O (edited 12/7/2007 5:11a).]

Wow. That was from left field.

CS,

Sorry if i seemed to be coming down hard on you. I get a little frustrated by the emotional (but often incorrect and/or illogical) posts that some put on here in reaction to anything unpleasant that happens. (Like calling Joe Horn's actions "murder" in the other thread.)

Many of us here (particularly on this board) try to be rational and informative in our posts that deal with gun laws, CHLs, deadly force, etc. As a cop, you have a deal of built in credibility on such issues, and if you get it wrong, it becomes that much harder to correct the misperceptions.

Thanks for sharing the website. I like it.

I know this will be horribly unpopular here - but I see no reason why a person would need to own an assalt rifle.

What exactly IS an assault rifle. I mean, come on, its a politically charged term. What makes it an assault rifle? The color? The magazine capacity? Being semi-automatic? Having a bayonet lug on it?

Once you start banning one type of gun/weapon, it has a snowball effect. Sure, you do not need a semi-automatic rifle to hunt with, nor do you need a 30 round magazine. But then again, the second amendment is not talking about hunting.

A gun made primarily for combat would be my definition - do you need an AK 47 for protection? No. Recreation? Not really.

I'm not necesarily advocating restricting these guns - just food for thought. I will never own one and I will discourage anyone I know from owning one.

Dont "need" an assault rifle?
I could argue that we dont "need" the freedom of speech or "need" the freedom of religion...that they have caused nothing but trouble in the last few decades.

I hope you catch my drift. Our freedoms arent necessary for existance in a civilized society, but they are necessary for existance in a "free" civilized society. They are all dependent on each other. Once we start chipping away at some, the others become endangered as well.

A gun is only as evil as the man holding it. It doesnt matter what it looks like or how scary it is. Dangerous weapons have always been available in America yet we are only rather recently (last 2-3 decades) seeing this rash of violent mass murders performed by middle class teenagers. Why is this happening. That is some real food for thought.

[This message has been edited by Neches21 (edited 12/8/2007 7:40a).]

I think it is an interesting subject. The second amendment doesn't give us the right to carry any typ of weapon we want, but I agree that we should be very careful on any restrctions we place.

Honesty - I don't know much about what the definition of an "assault" rifle is - and maybe that is the problem.

I don't think the "criminals will break the laws anyway" idea applies here. Law abiding citizens don't carry around AK 47s to the mall.

I think a ban on these types of weapons makes logical sense, but the "slippery slope" idea is a very strong pull against it.

Unless they have the 30.06 poster up, all the signs in the world won't keep me from packing.

quote:

---

Honesty - I don't know much about what the definition of an "assault" rifle is - and maybe that is the problem.

---

That is the problem. That and I am 95% sure the kid didnt have an AK47. He had some semi-auto variant that is no more lethal than any non-"assault" rifle.

Assault rifle used to be a term that described a certain type of firearm. It has been turned into a buzzword to demonize "scary-looking" guns.

Brian -
I used to think the same way about "assault rifles". Saw crazy looking guys at gun shows selling AR-15s, SKS's, and AK-47 variants and thought why does anyone ever need one of those?

After seeing regular guys on here who own them, friends who own them, etc. I built my own AR and really enjoy shooting it. May even hunt with it when the opportunity presents itself. Functionally, it is a semi-automatic rifle not too unlike the Ruger 10/22 I grew up with.

I haven't read how this kid in Omaha got this rifle, but you must realize that if there wasn't an AK available he would have used a bolt-action rifle, shotgun, or some other "non-assault rifle" firearm that would have been just as deadly.

quote:

---

I know this will be horribly unpopular here - but I see no reason why a person would need to own an assalt rifle.

---

one reason that may come across as totally paranoid is a SHTF scenario. I don't intend to get Constitutional, but one of the main reasons for the 2nd amendment and its liberal (in terms of scope not politics) interpretaion is for people to be well armed to repel a foreign army or any armed force.

An "assault rifle" or Carbine type rifle are excellent weapons for combat because of their power, range, and magazine capacity.

it is obviously very unlikely that a foreign army would ever invade. however, the break down of civil order is common enough today that a rifle of this type is a good defensive weapon.

And say perhaps China does invade us. It is unlikely. But their military is so large the US military would have its hands full in trying to repel the invasion. the only thing left are armed citizens (and police). Maybe the fact that we in this country are allowed to keep and bear weapons as dastardly as an AK is a huge obstacle to other countries seeking to invade us. Again, this scenario is very unlikely but unlikely scenarios are also why we have insurance and we don't give up on that simply because of low risk. it is the consequences that we are worried about.

The common perception of the assault rifle is that of an evil weapon. however, a pump 12 ga with 00 or 000 buckshot can cause just as much if not more damage but we perceive shotguns as somehow being "classy" or "normal".

The reports I've seen on the news said this kid stole this gun. but everytime i turn on the news something about this story changes.

I don't own an AK or any AR. I don't have plans to because they can be expensive (although AKs can be found for much less than even a used AR-15). I also don't own one because i live in an apt and over-penetration of the rounds would be a serious issue were i to have to use it in case of a home invasion.

everyone get on your tin foil hats and watchg for silent black helicopters

[This message has been edited by TXAGFAN (edited 12/8/2007 4:56p).]

Don't know much about firearms TXAGFAN ??

Just saying....

Guess he never saw Red Dawn.

quote:

---

The second amendment doesn't give us the right to carry any typ of weapon we want,

---

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Shall not be infringed...

[This message has been edited by ToHntortoFsh (edited 12/8/2007 7:30p).]