Real homeland security comes from giving citizens the ability to defend themselves and others, not from wiretaps and warrantless searches.
On Tuesday evening Sulejman Talovic headed to Trolley Square Mall like many other Salt Lake City teens. But instead of a credit card and iPod, he had a shotgun and .38 caliber pistol hidden under his black trenchcoat - plus a backpack full of ammunition.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments76 - Dave Nalle
And BTW, Zing may think I'm a 'nut', but Zing enjoys the benefits of an armed society whether he chooses to own a gun or not, because the potential that citizens may be armed acts as a deterrent to crime whether any specific citizen is armed or not.
Dave
77 - zingzing
clavos: "Come on, zing. If I'm bent on murdering my wife, will I do it with a tire iron because guns are illegal and I don't want to break the law?"
if you were going to murder your wife, you wouldn't do it with your own gun anyway. that would be monumentally stupid. how many times have you thought about killing your woman? not many i guess. jeez.
beyond that argument, would you know how to go about getting a weapon, should it be illegal? wouldn't that be pretty dangerous? it would take you into circles you wouldn't normally walk in, for one thing.
also, if the act itself were illegal, you would be exposing yourself to the law before you even got around to blowing your woman's brains all over your kitchen wall. paranoia seeping in.
if you were "hell-bent" on killing your woman, yeah, you would do it with the fucking tire iron. at least swinging it a few times would make you think about what you were doing.
or, depending on how bad things are, it might prolong the pleasure, i suppose...
78 - zingzing
dave, i wear tight clothes. anybody could see that i'm not carrying a gun.
(although they might suspect... wink, wink...)
as for your property vs murder thing, i think we've gone over this before. i'd much rather keep my life than some bit of property.
your "deterrent" argument is the same that gov'ts use for having nukes. yeah, it is a deterrent. but it's also a danger. the unfortunate part is that once someone decides to use one of those (gun or nuke), someone is probably going to die.
79 - Paul2
Dave,
this is a ridiculous argumentation and apparently also a very wrong one.
When we speak of comparing countries with liberal or restrictive gun laws, we can't compare the USA with Honduras or Japan with Iraq. Such examples are always distorting.
Thats why I chose the comparison between the EU and the USA.
Murder Rates 2006
USA: 6 per 100.000 people
EU : 1,4 per 100.000 people
Your assumption that these numbers include those
killed in committing a crime is wrong, thats not considered murder.
Your assumption "a few more murders" per year leads to less property crimes is wrong as well and it also implies that property is more important to you than human life.
When you compare the overall crime rate including all crimes, you will find that the one of the USA is signficantly higher than that of the EU.
And please don't answer with a comparision of bribery in Barbados and tax fraud in Bolivia.
80 - Clavos
zing,
if you were going to murder your wife, you wouldn't do it with your own gun anyway. that would be monumentally stupid.
More monumentally stupid than deciding to kill her in the first place?
beyond that argument, would you know how to go about getting a weapon, should it be illegal?
Probably. It's easy enough to get drugs in our country (ask any teenager; they not all using, but any of 'em can tell you where they are found). Easy enough to find a bookie, also.
also, if the act itself were illegal, you would be exposing yourself to the law before you even got around to blowing your woman's brains all over your kitchen wall.
My original point. Small potatoes, compared to the actual murder. If I've decided to murder, violating a gun prohibition isn't going to concern me.
81 - Clavos
One last one, zing:
how many times have you thought about killing your woman?
This week...or last? :>)
82 - zingzing
clavos: "More monumentally stupid than deciding to kill her in the first place?"
no... but, assuming you would like to get away with it...
"It's easy enough to get drugs in our country (ask any teenager; they not all using, but any of 'em can tell you where they are found). Easy enough to find a bookie, also."
ok, so there you are running around with hippies, coked-out do-nothings and gambling horse-lovers and their ilk. not so scary. if guns were illegal, just merely having a gun would be implying violence (more than it does today). so you'd be hanging out with violent people. it would be a dangerous proposistion from the start.
"My original point. Small potatoes, compared to the actual murder. If I've decided to murder, violating a gun prohibition isn't going to concern me."
once you start adding up all the stuff you have to do to get away with it, you've got a deterrent all wrapped up in itself.
83 - Clavos
if guns were illegal, just merely having a gun would be implying violence (more than it does today). so you'd be hanging out with violent people.
Exactly. Criminals, in other words. They'll have 'em, regardless.
once you start adding up all the stuff you have to do to get away with it, you've got a deterrent all wrapped up in itself.
The thing is, zing, most criminals don't think about all those ramifications, they "just do it".
One more point:
We've tried to outlaw booze and drugs in this country. Outlawing guns will probably be just about as successful.
84 - zingzing
i don't know... it's endlessly arguable.
85 - JR
Maurice: I have never understood why law abiding citizens wouldn't want to be armed.
Same reason many people in cities don't drive: it requires more time, effort and expense than it's worth.
Accurately using a gun takes a good deal of practice. Without that expertise, a gun is useless or worse - not only do you need to hit what's threatening you, you need not to hit a lot of other stuff.
Guns and ammunition cost money, and you'll need to buy enough ammunition for target practice. You'll also have to put in the time and effort. In the time it takes to become proficient with a gun, you could become proficient on a musical instrument (for example) and go make some spare cash, maybe even get laid.
Carrying a gun also gives you the responsibility of making sure it isn't misused. That means making sure it doesn't get taken away from you, which is just one more thing to worry about in public. And it means having confidence in your own self-control and judgement. Knowing when to use a gun is as important as knowing how, and just having the gun impairs that judgement - when your tool is a hammer, problems look like nails.
After all that, what are the odds the gun is ever going to solve your problem? The fact is, damn small. In my entire life, I have never had a situation where I needed a gun, let alone where it would have been the best solution. On occasion, using a gun might have brought me immediate gratification, but I seriously doubt it would have been worth it in the long run. Only an infinitesimal percentage of problems are appropriately solved with a gun, and the majority of those were created by inappropriate use of a gun (such as the example in the above article).
Just as with cars, the world wouldn't be a better place without guns, but it be better if most people didn't have them. Take a good hard look at the people you see driving and maybe you'll understand that.
86 - Dave Nalle
as for your property vs murder thing, i think we've gone over this before. i'd much rather keep my life than some bit of property.
Ah, but it's not YOUR death vs. YOUR property, it's the property of hundreds of citizens vs. a 1 in 5000 chance of one stranger dying.
Dave
87 - Paul2
So Dave... are you still wondering why the murder rate in the EU is 1/6 of the US? But then --according to your argumentation-- maybe they should legalize hand guns in Europe and the rate there would drop even further ?
88 - A.
I find the title of your article quiet offensive. I don't see what the kid's religion has to do with him going to a mall and shooting people. Yes, it is an awful tragedy, but the way you manipulated his religion into the story is disgusting. Obviously, all these troubled young people that have gone onto these horrible killing sprees have some psychological and emotional issues which you barely touched upon b/c you seized the golden opportunity, like so many "good Christians", to promote more hatered and anger among the American people towards the muslim people. I just don't see how relevant his religion is to what happened. I can't recall any of previous such incidents being classified as acts of "terrorism" and the killer's religion playing a role. Do you?!
89 - MCH
"Ah, but it's not YOUR death vs. YOUR property, it's the property of hundreds of citizens vs. a 1 in 5000 chance of one stranger dying."
- Dave Nalle
"I've seen figures similar to the ones Dave quotes."
- Vox Populi
90 - zingzing
dave: "Ah, but it's not YOUR death vs. YOUR property, it's the property of hundreds of citizens vs. a 1 in 5000 chance of one stranger dying."
ok, i value that stranger's life a little more than my own shoes. (anything but my music collection.)
91 - Dave Nalle
So Dave... are you still wondering why the murder rate in the EU is 1/6 of the US? But then --according to your argumentation-- maybe they should legalize hand guns in Europe and the rate there would drop even further ?
No, I'm not wondering, Paul. I've been checking the figures. I haven't found a full set specifically for the EU as a whole, but I do now have a lot of data on individual countries within the EU, where all forms of crime are on the rise and many are higher than the US. The murder rate is only a very small part of the picture. The rise in violent crime is particularly troubling. It's not surprising that Britains are demanding repeal of their gun restrictions.
But the most interesting thing is the differences in crime reporting between the EU and the US. Apparently figures for most EU countries only include cases where the criminals are actually sentenced, while more and more European countries are not even bringing many crimes to trial, or are releasing all but the most violent criminals without even charging them. Clearly merely comparing official figures doesn't give the full picture.
Dave
92 - zingzing
why don't you link to your article on the subject?
93 - Dave Nalle
Because it's late at night and I can't find it. I'm not even sure it exists. I've written like 700 blog articles here and elsewhere, and while I know I researched the topic of crime rates for various crimes around the world, I have no idea what I ever did with all that info - did it end up in an article or just a comment or just some notes - damned if I know at 4am.
Dave
94 - Christopher Rose
Dave: Your #62 is a mockery of common sense. I know you can't be shaken on this point, for you cling to it like an item of faith and are incapable of stepping outside your dogma, so I won't waste my time trying to persuade you.
However, the immense flaw in your argument is that you seem to think that having weapons discourages criminals: it doesn't, it just encourages them to get bigger guns. Anybody with an an unencumbered brain can see the arms race taking place...
Clavos: your #68 is specious. Just as one swallow dfoesn't make a summer, a little inner city violence doesn't negate the case that an unarmed citizenry is less likely to use weapons.
And your #71 is ludicrous. You would be far less likely to attack anybody with a tire iron than a gun. guns are easy to use, like a remote. A tire iron is up close and personal - and very very messy. Trust me, it's not the same thing at all...
Furthermore, having a large armed populace creates a climate in which other acts, like going to war, are far more easy to contemplate.
As we've seen over the last six years, war is a lot harder in practice than it is when discussed in the cozy environment of the USA, particularly when practiced for all the wrong reasons.
The other "popular" argument here, that the criminals have them, is also specious. Take away the climate of permission and enabling and get your police to do their jobs properly. A war on armed crime would be so much more useful than a dubious war on terror...
95 - STM
Arch says: "Martin... the second amendment to the Constitution states that citizens have the right to bear arms."
F.ck, is that a tired bloody argument or what. The 2nd amendment was designed only to keep a standing militia (you have one still: the National Guard), not to give every second lunatic the right to carry a gun. It's a 200-year-old piece of legislation that was aimed at defending against the British (who had no intention of attacking the US anyway) and carries no weight in 2007.
How do Americans reconcile this blind belief in the infallibility of the 2nd amendment and their continuing love/hate affair with guns with handwringing over the proliferation of millions of firearms that gives the US the highest rate of homicide in the developed world.
It looks really bizarre from the outside, trust me.
96 - Christopher Rose
STM: don't go telling the Yanks the truth now, you know it upsets their delusions...
;-)
97 - STM
Bloody Yanks ... fair dinkum. Almost as mad as your mob, Chris :)
98 - Zedd
I have never understood why law abiding citizens wouldn't want to be armed.
Because its those guns that get stolen and end up in the streets to harass everyone else. Unless you are Quick Draw McGraw or (((((CRAZY)))))), its stupid to think that you'd be ready at all times to shoot. If someone approaches you with a gun, you won't be able to pull it out quickly enough to do anything. Also you shooting in public will more likely cause more harm than good. You'd end up endangering the public.
99 - Paul2
Dave you've made it obvious that you hang on to your opinion although you can find nothing to support it.
A rational argumentation requires you to look at the facts and then draw some conclusions. You have an opinion in the first place and then try to find facts to support it and if you don't you just make something up and tell everyone else their to stupid sto understand.
"European countries are not even bringing many crimes to trial or are releasing all but the most violent criminals without even charging them"
--- thats some of the greatest crap I've heard in along time
100 - Clavos
STM Sez:
How do Americans reconcile this blind belief in the infallibility of the 2nd amendment and their continuing love/hate affair with guns with handwringing over the proliferation of millions of firearms that gives the US the highest rate of homicide in the developed world.
Well, for starters, you're talking about two different groups of Americans here. Those of us who are in favor of having our guns aren't the same people wringing their hands over the proliferation of millions of firearms.
Chris:
And your #71 is ludicrous. You would be far less likely to attack anybody with a tire iron than a gun. guns are easy to use, like a remote. A tire iron is up close and personal - and very very messy. Trust me, it's not the same thing at all...
OK, you're right, bad example. But my point was that, if I wanted to murder my wife, I would (and could) do so whether or not guns were available.
And, as I mentioned in #83, our spectacular lack of success in controlling either booze or drugs bodes ill for controlling guns, should we ever decide to repeal the 2nd Amendment; which I doubt will happen.
101 - Paul2
Clavos,
you're repeating yourself. No one said that it was impossible to obtain a weapon if they were banned.
The issue is if a society is safer without legal guns around or not.
Paul2
102 - Mohjho
"Lessons from a Muslim Youth's Killing Spree in Salt Lake City"
Lesson learned: We Need More Guns!
Brilliant Dave
103 - Clavos
The issue is if a society is safer without legal guns around or not.
Which begs the question: Will guns become more difficult to obtain if they are outlawed?
I contend that only people who respect the law and obey it will no longer have guns. Those bent on unlawful activity will have no compunction (or difficulty) in obtaining them, if they so desire, just as they don't in countries where guns are already banned.
Furthermore, enforcement of such a ban in this country, where millions of guns are already in circulation (and where millions of people will probably not support it), will be impossible, as the prohibitions against liquor and drugs have proven to be.
104 - zingzing
clavos: "Well, for starters, you're talking about two different groups of Americans here. Those of us who are in favor of having our guns aren't the same people wringing their hands over the proliferation of millions of firearms [that gives the US the highest rate of homicide in the developed world]."
yeah, it's called the bad guys and the good guys. if you own a gun or claim the right to (and that that right is right), then you are partially guilty of driving up that homicide rate. every time someone pulls a trigger, you had better think about it. you should all be shot. we should shoot you with your own guns. then those that didn't take part in that should shoot us with your guns, and they should be shot with your guns by other people, until america has shot itself to death. yeah.
105 - Dave Nalle
F.ck, is that a tired bloody argument or what. The 2nd amendment was designed only to keep a standing militia (you have one still: the National Guard), not to give every second lunatic the right to carry a gun. It's a 200-year-old piece of legislation that was aimed at defending against the British (who had no intention of attacking the US anyway) and carries no weight in 2007.
I realize you don't come from the US, so you can be excused for being so abyssmally ignorant about the purpose of the 2nd Amendment.
First off, the National Guard is not a militia, it is the equivalent of a regular military for the individual states. The militia is defined as all able bodied males of military age, and the idea of the 2nd amendment was that everyone should be armed so that in an emergency any person who was capable of fighting could be called up.
Second, the founding fathers who created the 2nd Amendment did not intend it for defending against Britain. We had already fought and won that war. The purpose of keeping and bearing arms is to retain the ability to resist oppressive government by force. If you think that sounds farfetched, let me offer you a few quotes:
Does that make clear enough what the founding fathers actually believed? And what they said then is as true today as it ever was. And if you like I can probably come up with 50 more similar quotes.
How do Americans reconcile this blind belief in the infallibility of the 2nd amendment and their continuing love/hate affair with guns with handwringing over the proliferation of millions of firearms that gives the US the highest rate of homicide in the developed world.
Remember that, as I mentioned before, the actual number of homicides is actually quite low, and has been declining. What's more, in the states where there are more guns and where concealed carry is permitted homicides have gone down dramatically. It's quite clear that the homicide rate is driving more by other factors than by the availability of guns. And, in fact, if you eliminate criminal vs. criminal violence, particularly gang and drug related, our homicide rate falls to below most developed nations. The best way to lower the homicide rate would be to end the War on Drugs and start decriminalizing drug use.
Dave
106 - Dave Nalle
Dave you've made it obvious that you hang on to your opinion although you can find nothing to support it.
LOL, I've written multiple articles with extensive research on this subject and the data is overwhelmingly in support of private gun ownership.
A rational argumentation requires you to look at the facts and then draw some conclusions. You have an opinion in the first place and then try to find facts to support it and if you don't you just make something up and tell everyone else their to stupid sto understand.
Mmmm. No. It's just that I've already been over this so many times and the facts have been so well established that I'm inclined to blow off your ridiculous assertions because no one who's informed on this subject can take them seriously.
"European countries are not even bringing many crimes to trial or are releasing all but the most violent criminals without even charging them"
--- thats some of the greatest crap I've heard in along time
Perhaps you should peruse some of the data and links in my prior article on the subject.
Dave
107 - Zedd
Dave
Some kook shoots everyone up and your response is that we need to hand out more guns to the public.
WOW!! What a brain!!! Can I sit in, on ALL of your lectures from now till the end of time?? PLEASE?
Happy Sarcastic Saturday!! Yippie!! Yeah Baybeee!! WOW WOW WOW!! SHWINGGGG! Party Down!! Toga! Toga! Oh BEHAVE!!!
108 - Clavos
Dave
Some kook shoots everyone up and your response is that we need to hand out more guns to the public.
WOW!! What a brain!!! Can I sit in, on ALL of your lectures from now till the end of time?? PLEASE?
Happy Sarcastic Saturday!! Yippie!! Yeah Baybeee!! WOW WOW WOW!! SHWINGGGG! Party Down!! Toga! Toga! Oh BEHAVE!!!
Now there's an incisive, thoughtful, hard-hitting, convincing and cogent argument...
109 - zingzing
dave: "LOL, I've written multiple articles with extensive research on this subject and the data is overwhelmingly in support of private gun ownership."
data, statistics, yada yada yada. they say what you want them to say.
nothing's as simple as you want it to be.
110 - Aku
Zingzing
"data, statistics, yada yada yada. they say what you want them to say.
nothing's as simple as you want it to be."
I have to quote clavos on this one.
"Now there's an incisive, thoughtful, hard-hitting, convincing and cogent argument..."
Please Zing, come up with somthing better next time other than "You are wrong because I say so."
111 - Paul2
aku - did you actually read this thread ?
112 - Dave Nalle
Some kook shoots everyone up and your response is that we need to hand out more guns to the public.
Not exactly. My response is that if there were more trained citizens carrying concealed weapons then these types of attacks which are very hard to predict or prevent in advance could be stopped before they turn into real massacres, as this one was.
WOW!! What a brain!!! Can I sit in, on ALL of your lectures from now till the end of time?? PLEASE?
For that I charge tuition.
Dave
113 - Zedd
Clavos
Thanks!
Happy Sarcastic Saturday!! Yippie!! Yeah Baybeee!! WOW WOW WOW!! SHWINGGGG! Party Down!! Toga! Toga! Oh BEHAVE!!!
I see you've decided to join the party!!
114 - Zedd
Aku
Sometimes its just exhausting to keep providing thoughtful arguments to people that don't have the capability to comprehend the significance of the data.
Whether it is a voice recording from God Himself or a "because I said so", it doesn't matter to some people.
THINKNESS PREVAILS!
115 - Dave Nalle
Sometimes its just exhausting to keep providing thoughtful arguments to people that don't have the capability to comprehend the significance of the data.
Ah, so your excuse is that your brain was worn out before you got to this thread?
Dave
116 - Zedd
Humor! Wow Dave. Good boy!!! I'm moved!! You did it. Its actually funny!! Not being sarcastic either. Chuckles!!!
117 - Dave Nalle
Ah, but for the real humor I charge admission.
Dave
118 - Paul2
Dave
It's quite nice to refer to your own biased article with a couple rare instances in Great Britain as a "source". It doesn't prove any of the things you've written here and it doesn't provide conclusions on all of Europe either (Europe is a little bigger than the UK, you know.)
As for your own fabricated data here is some data on
HOMICIDES 1999-2001 per 100,000 people
--------------------------------------
USA 5,6
New Zealand 2,5
Australia 1,9
Canada 1,8
European Union 1,6
--------------------------------------
Barclay, G. and Tavares C.: International Comparisons of Criminal Justice Statistics 2000, Home Office Statistical Bulletin 05, London 2002.
Killias, M.: European Sourcebook of Crime Criminal Justice Statistics, The Hague, 2003.
But these people are all so deluded and airheaded, maybe they should hire you ?
119 - Dave Nalle
It's quite nice to refer to your own biased article with a couple rare instances in Great Britain as a >source<.
I said in the link it was my article, and it has links to FIVE neutral outside sources to support the main point. And the bias is in your mind, I fear.
It doesn't prove any of the things you've written here and it doesn't provide conclusions on all of Europe either (Europe is a little bigger than the UK, you know.)
Well sure, it's not definitive on the rest of Europe. I haven't written an article on that yet, but probably will eventually. The data is certainly out there, from the UN study on the dramatic rise in youth crime to the many articles on crime and the failure of the judicial system in various nations in Europe.
As for your own fabricated data
Like I'm going to take you seriously when you insult me and repeat the same irrelevant and skewed statistics.
Dave
120 - Paul2
Dave,
we were talking about this thread and were were not debating about a rise in crime in one or the other country. That might be true for the UK ans ome other places. But that was not the issue.
You said that the murder rates in Europe were lower because of the murder/homicide statistical problem. Now you have scientific data about homicides worldwide. And if its not for the liberal gun laws, why would that rate be so high in the US?
Paul
121 - zingzing
aku: "Please Zing, come up with somthing better next time other than "You are wrong because I say so."
jesus christ. that's what i'm saying dave said. irony is beautiful sometimes.
122 - Clavos
I have some questions for Paul:
Do you want the USA to outlaw guns?
Are you a US citizen?
Do you live here?
123 - Paul2
-Clavos
1-yes, as a long-term goal
2-yes
3-not at the moment
124 - Clavos
Paul.
One more:
Should we attempt to outlaw (or at least restrict) everything in our culture that kills people?
125 - Paul
I don't really know what you mean...