ANOTHER mass shooting?

[Rick_R]

Same fckued up laws here

There are states in the US, mine (and Texas) included, that have specifically spelled out in the law that if you are on my property and I feel threatened I can shoot you without criminal or civil penalty. It's the castle doctrine or "stand your ground" law. These laws were enacted because of case law/common law that had created a “duty to retreat” requirement and only allowed deadly force after "retreating to a wall;" i.e., I had nowhere I could run to get away.

While I did have some misgivings about the implications of the law, I supported it because I felt the court decisions was taking a ridiculous stand and it had to be reversed.

Note: I'm not a lawyer and don't play one on TV, but the above is how I understood it when, fairly recently, the law was being argued and passed in my state.

Rick

 

[SuperiorBrew]

I hadn’t really even noticed this thread till I saw UG’s other one, then I went and read this whole thread and saw exactly what I had expected, both pro and anti gun with some fairly heated exchanges.
Overall this thread says a lot about the folks on HBT. On 99% of the other forums I have spent time on over the years this thread would have got ugly, blew up and then have got locked down and or deleted. This one pretty much policed itself, even with a few apologies. This is due to the good people here and a great team of moderators who make their presence known but only step in when it’s really needed.

Just for the record I’m pro gun all the way


“Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws.” Plato

 

[loopmd]

Wow!! I am totally impressed with this thread...at least so far!! This thing looked like it would get locked up for sure. You guys need to be commended for keeping this somewhat civil.

I am probably in the minority of firearm owners. I am an avid hunter, own many firearms, pistols, shotguns, rifles and muzzleloaders. I have 2 daughters who know how to shoot and respect firearms. I do not think that I need that assault rifle to go take a deer or shoot doves, nor do I think that anyone else should. When our founding fathers said we had the right to bear arms, I am sure they didn't mean that!

I think you have all touched upon something, though as far as how this really happens. Living in Omaha and having tasted what can happen with our own "mall shooting" just a few weeks ago it has really made me think about things.

It's not the firearms that are killing people, it's people that are killing people...and innocent people at that. We've always have f'ed up people in this world, just didn't always have them go into a mall or lecture hall and take it out on everyone else. Medications have a lot to do with it, as well as society in general. We have been moving towards a "band aid" society for the past 20 years and we are seeing the effects of this right now. Kids have been taught that there is no right or wrong, no winners or losers. I hate it and never brought up my girls that way.


now....let's get to racking that oatmeal stout to the secondary....


Loop

 

[McKBrew]

Even I have to admit, Texas Rocks!!! I know this doesn't lend anything to the conversation, but I can see why Texans are so proud of who they are.

I am pro-gun, but don't own any guns right now. My biggest hold-up is that I grew up in an area where I could just go out in the front yard and pop off rounds if I wanted to shoot. Most areas I've lived since I joined the military are places where you are only allowed to shoot on a gun range (at least locally). It's just too much of a hassle for me to go through the process of owning a gun just to shoot a couple times a month.

When I retire and move to BFE or somewhere close to it, I plan on owning a few.

 

[Thirdeye]

Wow!! I am totally impressed with this thread...at least so far!! This thing looked like it would get locked up for sure. You guys need to be commended for keeping this somewhat civil.

I am probably in the minority of firearm owners. I am an avid hunter, own many firearms, pistols, shotguns, rifles and muzzleloaders. I have 2 daughters who know how to shoot and respect firearms. I do not think that I need that assault rifle to go take a deer or shoot doves, nor do I think that anyone else should. When our founding fathers said we had the right to bear arms, I am sure they didn't mean that!

I think you have all touched upon something, though as far as how this really happens. Living in Omaha and having tasted what can happen with our own "mall shooting" just a few weeks ago it has really made me think about things.

It's not the firearms that are killing people, it's people that are killing people...and innocent people at that. We've always have f'ed up people in this world, just didn't always have them go into a mall or lecture hall and take it out on everyone else. Medications have a lot to do with it, as well as society in general. We have been moving towards a "band aid" society for the past 20 years and we are seeing the effects of this right now. Kids have been taught that there is no right or wrong, no winners or losers. I hate it and never brought up my girls that way.


now....let's get to racking that oatmeal stout to the secondary....


Loop

While I respect your opinion, you bring up an interesting point that hasnt really been mentioned. Assault weapons. I for one am totally for them and Ill tell you why. I believe that the second amendment is more about giving the people the ability to protect themselves from their government than from each other.

Now youre probably thinking that theres no way in hell the citizens of this country could ever rise up against the mightiest military in the world and expect to win. After all, we dont have tanks (well, some do ), helicopters, heavy artillery, etc. My answer to that is look at the insurgency in Iraq. They are barefooted peasants, armed only with AKs and IEDs and look at the hell they were giving us. IMHO a government that knows it will have to deal with random people taking shots at them from behind ever corner will think twice about rising up against its people.

Another example, maybe not as good is Waco TX. The government came busting through the doors thinking the people were gonna just lay down their arms, and instead they ran into a BUZZ SAW. Its terrible what happened there with all the kids killed and whatnot but you havent heard of the government messing around with any other religous groups since then have you? Not that I am religious at all. Quite the contrary. And Ill keep my opinions of organized religion to myself. But this is a free country and people have the right to believe and worship how they want, so long as they dont trample on the rights of others. And yeah I know there were some illegal things going on in Waco. Not justifying that at all. But the government had no right to handle it the way they did. And I think they will think twice before doing it again.

IMHO this freedom stuff is SERIOUS business and not to be taken lightly. To me, assault weapons are another form of checks and balances. Not trying to start a conflict, just my 0.02

 

[rattler_mt]

few things to remember, if you read various letters back and forth between the founding fathers as well as teh constitution, there is no doubt that the founding fathers ment that the right to bear arms extends to the individual citizen because in the late 1700's every able bodied man was considered to be part of the militia. there for weither they took part in drills or not didnt matter, the populous was the militia. the founding fathers most definatly ment to keep the general populous better armed than the government.

"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."
--Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787.

 

[McKBrew]

It's amazing how gun control is such a big issue. Yet, seven people just died in Maryland while watching an illegal drag race. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,330892,00.html. More people are killed in this country annually by motor vehicles than by guns. What if someone were to start advocating car control on a big scale? Speed control devices, RFID tracking devices, extensive night-time driving restrictions, etc... Would gun control supporters also support these rules as well? It's saving lives, right?

I'd bet more people would raise a stink if someone started threatening their "god-given" right to drive, even though the right to own a motor vehicle is not in the constitution.

The reason gun control is where it is at is because of the media and the way they report gun violence as opposed to other types of deaths.

Just a thought.....

 

[Jesse17]

I'm glad some others are pro- "assault weapons". I was going to bring it up, but didn't want to sound like a anti-gov nut, which I'm not.

I hate the way the media makes a huge deal out of every criminal with a gun, and hardly leeks a little blurb about how grandma protected herself with a gun from a burglar.

IMO, the media does this because they are mostly liberal, which in my mind equates to pro-socialist/communist. And, it would be very hard for this government to turn socialist/communist as long as American Citizens are armed well.

 

[EdWort]

It's amazing how gun control is such a big issue. Yet, seven people just died in Maryland while watching an illegal drag race. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,330892,00.html. More people are killed in this country annually by motor vehicles than by guns. What if someone were to start advocating car control on a big scale? Speed control devices, RFID tracking devices, extensive night-time driving restrictions, etc... Would gun control supporters also support these rules as well? It's saving lives, right?

Actually more people die from doctors mistakes each year than from legally owned guns. Should we ban doctors?

 

[EdWort]

I'm glad some others are pro- "assault weapons". I was going to bring it up, but didn't want to sound like a anti-gov nut, which I'm not.

Actually congress likes to define "Assault Weapon" based on how it LOOKS, not how it works. Pretty silly, but that law expired, for now.

Time to get your AR & SKS before Hillary or Obama gets elected while you still can and can still afford it (Obama has a 1 trillion dollar tax to fight global poverty on the books payable to the U.N. based on our GDP).

 

[DeathBrewer]

Actually more people die from doctors mistakes each year than from legally owned guns. Should we ban doctors?

i had a doctor screw me over with mah bak this year and may have ****ed me up for life, basically so he can make money. can we say malpractice? doesn't matter whether i take it to court or not...i want my back back. kinda my fault, anyway, as i was ill-informed.

so, YES, we shoudl ban doctors

 

[wihophead]

Actually congress likes to define "Assault Weapon" based on how it LOOKS, not how it works. Pretty silly, but that law expired, for now.

Time to get your AR & SKS before Hillary or Obama gets elected while you still can and can still afford it (Obama has a 1 trillion dollar tax to fight global poverty on the books payable to the U.N. based on our GDP).

Oh yeah the "Global Poverty Act" since when is our responsibility to eliminate global poverty.

I know this is but it really makes me

 

[DeathBrewer]

seriously, **** everyone else!

but, no...i agree with you...let's take care of ourselves first.

 

[EdWort]

Oh yeah the "Global Poverty Act" since when is our responsibility to eliminate global poverty.

Exactly! Not to mention the U.N. does not exactly have a great track record of administering relief funds without rampant corruption.

Most of our foreign aid never reaches the people it is meant to help. It goes to line pockets of corrupt dictators and bureaucrats.

 

[sudsmonkey]

If guns were outlawed, there would have been 15 people stabbed.
Guns are bad!




Screw it...I'm taking my kids shooting right now.:rockin:

 

[FSR402]

When you compare our violent crimes involving firearms to European or other foreign countries it is astounding the difference. What do they do right that we do so wrong to maintain control on this?

My guess is that they have less trash walking around. It's time to start skimming the gene pool.

 

[zbeeblebrox]

i would just like to emphasize the joy i get out of posting a small grouping on a target thats 200 or more yards away. and when i move out of California i will upgrade my FFL so as i can buy assault rifles.
and im with the few of you who think the 2nd amendment is another check and balance for the government.

 

[Pugilist]

Some people mentioned local militia's and they really were the root of our independence and this countries formation. I think in this climate it would not be so bad to have counties and large towns implement a volunteer milita program. That way if it really ever hits the fan (inevitable I am afraid) your local citizens have some training and some protection. I do feel that the application process should be very stringent on physical and mental capacity though.

People also mention killing an intruder in THEIR home and being hung out to dry for it. That disgusts me, as well as a police officer or soldier having to kill someone and being criminalized until the shoot is "cleared".

I also feel the media again glorifying these sick individuals who do shootings adds alot. As well as showing britney "psycho" spears going out for cigarettes and covering it front page. This is while our military and alot of our best allies (England!) are fighting and dying for us around the world and they get a 1 paragraph entry in the classifieds. That truly makes me ill.

 

[EdWort]

+1 Great ideas! The media is to blame for many of the ills that plague our country.

 

[Bernie Brewer]

I believe that the second amendment is more about giving the people the ability to protect themselves from their government than from each other.

That is EXACTLY what it is about.

IMHO this freedom stuff is SERIOUS business and not to be taken lightly. To me, assault weapons are another form of checks and balances. Not trying to start a conflict, just my 0.02

I am in total agreement! I will admit the downside, though, of the whackos going postal with them. But then the whackos could (and would) build just about any weapon they wanted.

But like Thirdeye said, our freedoms are not to be messed with.

 

[PeteOz77]

"My guns have killed less people than Ted Kennedy's Car"

 

[beala]

As of about a year ago, I believed in gun control, but after looking at the issue closely, I can't seem to find a good argument for limiting gun rights. To be a free nation, we must begin completely free, and then progressively limit rights only for good reason. Since gun control is a way of limiting rights, the burden of proof lies upon gun-control advocates. That is, those who are arguing for gun control must provide good reasons for limiting those rights, not the other way around. Gun owners don't have to justify themselves, it's those who wish to limit the rights of gun owners that must prove gun ownership to be an excessive right.

In light of this, all that must be done to defend gun ownership is to rebut the arguments in favor of gun control. So far, what I've read are the following:
1) Guns cause crime. Things that cause crime should be outlawed.
2) Guns are dangerous and unnecessary. Unnecessary dangerous things should be outlawed.

I think both of these arguments are very similar and can be effectively rebutted with counter-examples.
1) I not sure how guns can cause crime. It's not like guns whisper into the ears of their owners trying to persuade them to rob the local bank. Maybe it would be more accurate to say "guns are often used in crime." If this is the case, and it's also true that "objects that are used in crimes should be outlawed," then the inescapable conclusion is that cars and ski masks and knives should also be outlawed, because these are also often used in crime. That is clearly absurd, and therefore the premise that "objects that are used in crimes should be outlawed" is false. One possible response is that since cars and ski masks and knives have other uses, they should be legal, but guns shouldn't. But to say that guns don't have other uses is simply false . Hunting, marksmanship, and defense are all valid alternative uses for guns.
2) Similar counter-examples can be used for this argument. Perhaps large chef's knives are unnecessary because smaller paring knives can be used instead, albeit with some extra effort. They are also dangerous. Should we therefore conclude that chefs knives should be outlawed? No, of course not. Therefore, the premise that "unnecessary dangerous things should be outlawed" is false.

From this, it's pretty clear that completely outlawing guns is an untenable position, but the more complex issue is that they should at least be controlled. I have trouble with this, though, because then we arrive at the same absurd conclusions as above. If we need a license for guns, should we also need a license for ski masks and chef's knives? Personally, I'm undecided on this issue.

 

[Thirdeye]

As of about a year ago, I believed in gun control, but after looking at the issue closely, I can't seem to find a good argument for limiting gun rights. To be a free nation, we must begin completely free, and then progressively limit rights only for good reason. Since gun control is a way of limiting rights, the burden of proof lies upon gun-control advocates. That is, those who are arguing for gun control must provide good reasons for limiting those rights, not the other way around. Gun owners don't have to justify themselves, it's those who wish to limit the rights of gun owners that must prove gun ownership to be an excessive right.

In light of this, all that must be done to defend gun ownership is to rebut the arguments in favor of gun control. So far, what I've read are the following:
1) Guns cause crime. Things that cause crime should be outlawed.
2) Guns are dangerous and unnecessary. Unnecessary dangerous things should be outlawed.

I think both of these arguments are very similar and can be effectively rebutted with counter-examples.
1) I not sure how guns can cause crime. It's not like guns whisper into the ears of their owners trying to persuade them to rob the local bank. Maybe it would be more accurate to say "guns are often used in crime." If this is the case, and it's also true that "objects that are used in crimes should be outlawed," then the inescapable conclusion is that cars and ski masks and knives should also be outlawed, because these are also often used in crime. That is clearly absurd, and therefore the premise that "objects that are used in crimes should be outlawed" is false. One possible response is that since cars and ski masks and knives have other uses, they should be legal, but guns shouldn't. But to say that guns don't have other uses is simply false . Hunting, marksmanship, and defense are all valid alternative uses for guns.
2) Similar counter-examples can be used for this argument. Perhaps large chef's knives are unnecessary because smaller paring knives can be used instead, albeit with some extra effort. They are also dangerous. Should we therefore conclude that chefs knives should be outlawed? No, of course not. Therefore, the premise that "unnecessary dangerous things should be outlawed" is false.

From this, it's pretty clear that completely outlawing guns is an untenable position, but the more complex issue is that they should at least be controlled. I have trouble with this, though, because then we arrive at the same absurd conclusions as above. If we need a license for guns, should we also need a license for ski masks and chef's knives? Personally, I'm undecided on this issue.

Bravo! Well said.

 

[Chris_Dog]

Per Ron White...

If guns kill people, pencils cause misspelled words. (to paraphrase)

 

[RICLARK]

It's gun control that creates these "Gun Free Zones" where people are supposed to be "Safe".

All they do is stop law abiding people from being able to defend themselves.

Kooks & Criminals love "Gun Free Zones" because "Gun Control" has made them very safe....Safe for the Kook & Criminal.

Amen + 1,000

 

[wihophead]

+1 Great ideas! The media is to blame for many of the ills that plague our country.

I couldn't agree with you more....

 

[MikeFlynn74]

EdWort
+1 Great ideas! The media is to blame for many of the ills that plague our country.

no- Its the Aholes who continually support by watching the media. When its time for the news at my house we either go for a walk or eat dinner.

American media glorifies all death.

 

[Orfy]

no- Its the Aholes who continually support by watching the media. When its time for the news at my house we either go for a walk or eat dinner.

American media glorifies all death.

I went One further. No Television in this house for that reason!

 

[mrfocus]

I have two things to share:

1) Wow, you're media outlets are really bad. Funny thing is, our government sponsored media CBC-SRC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation - Société Radio-Canada), at least the French part is quite good at delivering the news. They always have a critical eye and rarely enter into the kind of glorifying that seems to happen in the US (I watch some US news, either through FOX or CNN). It seems that they really respect what the media is supposed to do (presenting the facts, not opinions). The only problem I have with them is when it's huge local stories, like the Dawson College Shooting, in Autumn 2006. That brings me to my second point.

2) Did you guys know that even with gun control (it's been implanted about 5 years ago) we have had mass murders. For about 10 years, the government has been saying how gun control will help us, but the problem remains, if a criminal wants to get a gun, they will get it. I'm sure the law has affected them, but only on price, that is, the price they pay per illegal gun. The law was supposed to be somewhere in the $100 million to implant. Well, the cost has now escalated over the billion dollar mark. The government had huge resistance from hunters and gun collectors of rifles, which are probably the most uncommon form of guns used in perpetrating crime, they have as such had to use an "amnesty" which stipulates that rifle owners have until a certain date to register their guns (currently May 2008). The big problem is, the date has been pushed back so many times (at least 5 in the last decade) that no one really takes it seriously, as such some have decided to just not obey the law.
Gun deaths haven't gone down in any major cities (Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver) since the criminals can still buy guns. Gun control doesn't work.

 

[zoebisch01]

I went One further. No Television in this house for that reason!

Hey that's pretty good! I just don't watch the news, but lately I have seriously been thinking of cutting even more media back. Like I said before, there is enough evil in my microcosm of life to wade through every day and I don't need to see the horrors of the world, as it's nothing new really .