The right to bear arms
Replies
-
of course it isn't. but we don't live in a world of absolutes.
does it suck? yeah. I'd be pissed if I had a dog and it was shot. of course I would. but if it was in another person's yard, harassing their animals? maybe a better neighbor finds some other way to try to get the thing to leave. maybe a BB gun would be a better option, even. but there's nothing wrong with defending your home, family and property.0 -
I don't know these people or the facts beyond what was reported above. But it sure sounds like you are agreeing that this guy had lots of better ways to resolve this situation than shooting the dog. It's definitely not a case of "shoot the dog" or "get in the middle and get bitten himself."0
-
I'm saying that, yes, there may have been other options. we don't really know. but I'm also saying that if he truly felt his animals were at risk, what he did was a perfectly acceptable option.0
-
I've never been in a situation where I wished I had a gun. I have had someone brandish a gun at the group of people I was with. I can definitely say that I wish that idiot hadn't had it.
That's a given. I hope to never, ever have to fire a shot at someone. Do I practice? Yes. Do I like to shoot? Nope.0 -
The most effective way to institute new gun control legislation would be for a group of armed black men to demonstrate in front of the Capitol in favor of gun rights.0
-
The most effective way to institute new gun control legislation would be for a group of armed black men to demonstrate in front of the Capitol in favor of gun rights.
I saw something the other day that was encouraging gang members to join the NRA, and see how fast things change.0 -
Anyone who shoot's a neighbor's dog that accidentally got loose was looking for any excuse to shoot that dog.
Let's not pretend it was anything else.
Exactly. And it makes me so worried for my dog. I live very close to where this happened. And my dog has gotten loose before, actually, just recently.
I have a 6' high stockade fenced in, bricked patio that is all hers. Some neighborhood kids decided it would be funny to let all the dogs on the street loose, so there were 4-5 dogs running around. I would have been devastated if some *kitten* took it upon himself to murder my dog because she was loose.
And while she's always been great with people, she is a Siberian husky. She would eat a bunny if given the opportunity. She's eaten squirrels, mice, and even an otter that have wandered into her yard. And she's 13, and old and deaf. She'd never hear a warning shot. But if someone went out to her to take her away from the rabbits, she'd walk away nicely.0 -
Some recent statements by gun fetishists:
'Hitler used gun control to take power" -- have seen numerous times on various sites.
"There will come a time when the gun owners of America, the law-abiding gun owners of America, will be the Rosa Parks and we will sit down on the front seat of the bus, case closed,"---Ted Nugent, crazy white male and professed pedophile.
"I think Martin Luther King would agree with me, if he were alive today, that if African Americans had been given the right to keep and bear arms from day one of the country’s founding, perhaps slavery might not have been a chapter in our history"--Larry Ward, crazy white male and chairman of Gun Appreciation Day.
"Don't take my guns or I'm gonna start killing people."--James Yaeger, crazy white male and CEO of Tactical Response, a weapons training facility and gun-fetish frat house in Tennessee.
And then there is, of course, Mr Gibbons, who insists on target practice shooting in his back yard and shooting neighbor's pets (oh, I'm sorry..."Defending his Property").
And that's just this week's crazy, ladies and gentlemen. One week in the well-ordered and rational minds of America's gun owners.
The irony, of course, is that the NRA and other gun-fetish groups are trying to deflect attention from themselves by promoting enhanced mental health screening and treatment as the first-line defense in reducing gun violence. And yet, the fact is that if we increase efforts to make sure that mentally-ill people cannot own firearms, the NRA executive board, Ted Nugent, Larry Ward, and a huge majority of current gun owners will be the first ones they come after.
I understand the whole "guns don't kill people--people kill people" rationale. However, what that ignores is that there are some potentially huge psychological issues that drive many people to possess guns---like insecurity and paranoia. It is no accident that the most vociferous gun-fetishists are white males--many of whom feel they have been victimized by their loss of privileged status over the past 50 years. Guns make small, weak men feel strong, which is why weak, small-minded men hold on to them with such desperation. And why the election of an African-American President has driven them into such a frenzy. (A strong woman like Hillary Clinton would likely have had the same effect).
So, while "guns may not kill people" when you have as many unbalanced people running around as we do in the US, to me it just makes rational sense to reduce the availability of the most lethal weaponry. Without his phallic AR-15 at hand, perhaps Mr Gibbon would have made more of an effort to get along with his neighbors so that he did not feel so threatened by their pets.0 -
While we are talking about guns in the news this week, I think it cannot go unmentioned about the hero teacher who talked down the shooter at a California school. (Ironically, news broke while Joe Biden was meeting with the NRA to discuss gun control policies).
Taft Union High School Teacher, Campus Supervisor 'Talked Down' Shooter, Deputy Says
TAFT, Calif. — A 16-year-old student armed with a shotgun walked into a rural California high school on Thursday, shot one student and fired at others and missed before a teacher and another staff member talked him into surrendering, officials said.
The teen victim was in critical but stable condition, and the suspect, whose pockets were stuffed with ammunition, was still being interrogated, Kern County Sheriff Donny Youngblood said at a news conference Thursday evening.
The suspect used a shotgun that belonged to his brother and went to bed Wednesday night with a plan to shoot two fellow students, Youngblood said.
Surveillance video shows the alleged shooter trying to conceal the gun as he nervously entered Taft Union High School through a side entrance after school had started Thursday morning.
When the shots were fired, teacher Ryan Heber tried to get the more than two dozen students out a back door and engaged the shooter in conversation to distract him, Youngblood said. Campus supervisor Kim Lee Fields responded to a call of shots fired and also began talking to the teen.
"They talked him into putting that shotgun down. He in fact told the teacher, `I don't want to shoot you,' and named the person that he wanted to shoot," Youngblood said.
"The heroics of these two people goes without saying. ... They could have just as easily ... tried to get out of the classroom and left students, and they didn't," the sheriff said. "They knew not to let him leave the classroom with that shotgun."
The shooter didn't show up for first period, then interrupted the class of 28 students.
Youngblood said the suspect alleges the two students he targeted had bullied him for more than a year, but the sheriff couldn't confirm the allegations.
"Certainly he believed that the two people he targeted had bullied him, in his mind. Whether that occurred or not we don't know yet," Youngblood said.
Youngblood did not release the student's disciplinary record, saying he didn't have it.
The shotgun is believed to belong to the boy's brother and was in the boy's home, Youngblood said.
The Sheriff's Department did not release the boy's name because he was a juvenile and had yet to be charged. But many students and community members said they knew the boy and said he was often teased, including Alex Patterson, 18, who went to Taft with the suspect before graduating last year.
"He comes off as the kind of kid who would do something like this," Patterson said. "He talked about it a lot, but nobody thought he would."
Trish Montes, who lived next door to the suspect, said he was "a short guy" and "small" who was teased about his stature by many, including the victim.
"Maybe people will learn not to bully people," Montes said. "I hate to be crappy about it, but that kid was bullying him."
Montes said her son had worked at the school and tutored the boy last year, sometimes walking with him between classes because he felt sorry for him.
"All I ever heard about him was good things from my son," Montes said. "He wasn't Mr. Popularity, but he was a smart kid. It's a shame. My kid said he was like a genius. It's a shame because he could have made something of himself."
The wounded student was flown to a hospital in Bakersfield and was listed in stable but critical condition Thursday evening. Officials said a female student was hospitalized with possible hearing damage because the shotgun was fired close to her ear, and another girl suffered minor injuries during the scramble to flee when she fell over a table.
Officials said there's usually an armed officer on campus, but the person wasn't there because he was snowed in. Taft police officers arrived within 60 seconds of first reports.
Bakersfield television station KERO reported receiving phone calls from people inside the school who hid in closets. About 900 students are enrolled at the high school, which includes ninth through 12th grades.
Wilhelmina Reum, whose daughter Alexis Singleton is a fourth-grader at a nearby elementary school, got word of the attack while she was about 35 miles away in Bakersfield and immediately sped back to Taft.
"I just kept thinking this can't be happening in my little town," she told The Associated Press.
"I was afraid I was going to get hurt," Alexis said. "I just wanted my mom to get here so I could go home."
Taft is a community of fewer than 10,000 people amid oil and natural gas production fields about 120 miles northwest of Los Angeles.
The attack there came less than a month after a gunman massacred 20 children and six women at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., then killed himself.
That shooting prompted President Barack Obama to promise new efforts to curb gun violence. Vice President Joe Biden, who was placed in charge of the initiative, said he would deliver new policy proposals to the president by next week.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said in a statement that her father had attended Taft Union and she has visited the school over the years.
"At this moment my thoughts and prayers are with the victims, and I wish them a speedy recovery," Feinstein said. "But how many more shootings must there be in America before we come to the realization that guns and grievances do not belong together?"0 -
Yup. We mentioned this, what, a page ago?
Time to ban shotguns, too, I guess.0 -
And, azdak, clearly you are the mirror opposite of the Ted nugent fringe. So no sense in trying to have a rational discussion.0
-
Yup. We mentioned this, what, a page ago?
Time to ban shotguns, too, I guess.
Why do you insist on reducing everything to black and white? It makes it very difficult to have a rational conversation with you.0 -
Extremist rants from either side aren't an accurate reflection of that position and shouldn't be used as an argument that your stance is right.
Also, claiming that gun owners as a whole are mentally unbalanced is offensive, and not an effective way to draw other people to your line of reasoning, ESPECIALLY if you're not going to post any kind of proof of that statement. That's not a debate, it's just name-calling.0 -
By the same token, claiming that everyone wanting to discuss improvements to gun laws wants take away all guns or doesn't care about the safety of their family or must never have been in a dangerous situation or should shut up because the issue was settled in 1791 adds little to a discussion.0
-
Yup. We mentioned this, what, a page ago?
Time to ban shotguns, too, I guess.
Sorry, I must have missed it. :huh:0 -
Yup. We mentioned this, what, a page ago?
Time to ban shotguns, too, I guess.
Why do you insist on reducing everything to black and white? It makes it very difficult to have a rational conversation with you.
not saying anything is black and white -- and that's exactly the problem. the rush now is "BAN SCARY LOOKING RIFLES!!" just because they've been used in several recent, high-profile shootings. that's black-and-white thinking. because the fact is, something like 20 times more people are killed every year by handguns than any other kind of gun. more people are killed yearly by knives than they are by any kind of rifle. more than twice as many are killed with fists or feet as with any kind of rifle. so why, then, are we suddenly attacking the rifles when, it is shown through FBI statistics, they are a drop in the bucket?
ETA: here are the numbers, from 2011
* 12,664 people slain in the United States.
handguns - 6,620
knives - 1,694
fists or feet - 728
** rifles of every type used in only 323 homicides0 -
They are not a drop in the MASS SHOOTING bucket. The push to ban is the high powered, large capacity weapons. When someone can squeeze off 30 rounds in a matter of seconds without reloading, the potential mass casualties are much higher than a with handgun that unless modified, can hold a fraction of that.
People are going to be murdered, or even accidentally shot, by all manor of weapons. But It seems quite clear that the mass killings are predominantly committed with high capacity weapons.
And this, of course, does not underscore the need for a comprehensive mental health background check before handing out any weapon.
And we always hear about how legal gun owners are so responsible. Yet at one point, ALL guns had to be legal, no? Presumably, there is no company that is manufacturing guns to give to criminals. So through either sale, trade, theft, etc., the legal guns ended up in the hands of criminals. Where is the onus for legal gun owners to legally sell or dispose of their weapons, or to to keep them secure so they don't fall into the wrong hands?
That's right, the penalties are minute, if ever served. Corrupt dealers, straw purchasers, and private sales need to be regulated and strictly penalized.0 -
Yup. We mentioned this, what, a page ago?
Time to ban shotguns, too, I guess.
Why do you insist on reducing everything to black and white? It makes it very difficult to have a rational conversation with you.
not saying anything is black and white -- and that's exactly the problem. the rush now is "BAN SCARY LOOKING RIFLES!!" just because they've been used in several recent, high-profile shootings. that's black-and-white thinking. because the fact is, something like 20 times more people are killed every year by handguns than any other kind of gun. more people are killed yearly by knives than they are by any kind of rifle. more than twice as many are killed with fists or feet as with any kind of rifle. so why, then, are we suddenly attacking the rifles when, it is shown through FBI statistics, they are a drop in the bucket?
ETA: here are the numbers, from 2011
* 12,664 people slain in the United States.
handguns - 6,620
knives - 1,694
fists or feet - 728
** rifles of every type used in only 323 homicides
An assault weapons ban is not the only thing being discussed. I happen to agree with you that it would be largely ineffective. How about addressing any of the other measures being discussed instead of continuing the false "BAN! BAN! BAN!" mantra.0 -
An assault weapons ban is not the only thing being discussed. I happen to agree with you that it would be largely ineffective. How about addressing any of the other measures being discussed instead of continuing the false "BAN! BAN! BAN!" mantra.
the problem is that this is the only thing truly being talked about in earnest.
the biggest problem is our mental health care. but that's such a big, complex issue. so a lot of the thought seems to be, 'you know, that's gonna be tough to do something about. so let's work on this gun thing instead.'0 -
They are not a drop in the MASS SHOOTING bucket. The push to ban is the high powered, large capacity weapons. When someone can squeeze off 30 rounds in a matter of seconds without reloading, the potential mass casualties are much higher than a with handgun that unless modified, can hold a fraction of that.
and mass shootings are a drop in the overall gun death bucket. they are, in fact, on a steady decrease. and I'm not sure how much you know about guns. but automatic weapons aren't legal. and semi-auto handguns can accept pretty large clips.0 -
I'm not sure where you get your statistics, but there is no steady decrease in mass shootings. Hopefully 2012 was an aberration, but it was much higher than typical in that year. It's been steady, on average, since 1980.
And yes, I'm aware fully automatic weapons are not legal. But a push to ban large capacity clips for handguns is something to be considered. Do we need to give people the tools to mow many others?
Other points are going ignored. Again I ask where the penalties for distributing the legal weapons into the hands of those who are prohibited from having them?
Why is it ok to register cars and track their sale, but not guns? Why does my Sudafed use get tracked by drivers' license and federal database, but not my ammunition purchase?0 -
there is, in fact, a steady decrease. 2012 was a high year. but right now we don't know if it was a random spike or a new trend.... those who study mass shootings say they are not becoming more common.
“There is no pattern, there is no increase,” says criminologist James Allen Fox of Boston’s Northeastern University, who has been studying the subject since the 1980s, spurred by a rash of mass shootings in post offices.
The random mass shootings that get the most media attention are the rarest, Fox says. Most people who die of bullet wounds knew the identity of their killer.
...
Grant Duwe, a criminologist with the Minnesota Department of Corrections who has written a history of mass murders in America, said that while mass shootings rose between the 1960s and the 1990s, they actually dropped in the 2000s. And mass killings actually reached their peak in 1929, according to his data. He estimates that there were 32 in the 1980s, 42 in the 1990s and 26 in the first decade of the century.
Chances of being killed in a mass shooting, he says, are probably no greater than being struck by lightning.0 -
Other points are going ignored. Again I ask where the penalties for distributing the legal weapons into the hands of those who are prohibited from having them?
Why is it ok to register cars and track their sale, but not guns? Why does my Sudafed use get tracked by drivers' license and federal database, but not my ammunition purchase?
gun dealers can't sell guns to those that aren't allowed to have them. pass the federal background check, you're clear. that isn't to say that you aren't dealing with some kind of mental issues and probably shouldn't have access. but, as it stands, we don't have anything in place to prevent that. we should, but we don't have a mechanism in to handle that right now. mostly because there are privacy issues involved, I'm sure.
and I buy lots of ammo, if it is on sale or I have the extra cash. no reason I shouldn't be able to buy however much I want.0 -
I've been reading the comments with great interest because as a Canadian the whole gun thing is outside my experience. Well, not quite. I grew up with shotguns and hunting rifles in the house: locked up and ammunition stored separately. Handguns, I think of as being only for police and criminals.
So...I'd like to hear thoughts about this if anyone should care to take a look:
http://guncontrol.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/moregunsmoredeaths2012.pdf
I realise this is from a pro gun control website, but the stats are from government sources in both countries. I did look at stats from Stats Canada and from U.S. government websites and with my my math came up with basically the same figures.
I'm curious.0 -
Your statistics are misleading. There may have been fewer instances of mass shootings, but the body count has stayed steady.
And while gun dealers may not be allowed to sell to those who are not supposed to have them, they of course do. "Nearly 60% of the guns used in crime are traced back to a small number—just 1.2%—of crooked gun dealers. Corrupt dealers frequently have high numbers of missing guns, in many cases because they’re selling guns “off the books” to private sellers and criminals. In 2005, the ATF examined 3,083 gun dealers and found 12,274 “missing” firearms."
And privacy laws should be exempt in this situation. In order to volunteer at my child's school, I need to fill out a CORI report that has my background. In order to join the military, I cannot take many different kinds of medications that would be prescribed for psychologic conditions. If we can exempt in some conditions, why not to protect people? Lawful gun owners should have no concerns, unless they are in fact mentally unstable.
So buy lots of ammo, when it is on sale or when you have cash. But again, there's no reason why there can't be a federal database that tracks it. You ammunition is far more likely to have deadly repercussions than my cold medicine, and that's regulated.
Again I say, if you're decent, law-abiding gun owner, you should have no qualms about doing everything possible to keep guns out of the hands of those who have no business having them. Those who protest, at the expense of the safety of others, I must wonder what they have to hide.0 -
gun dealers can't sell guns to those that aren't allowed to have them. pass the federal background check, you're clear.
Yes, but a non-trivial percentage of guns are sold by people other than Federally-licensed dealers. That's the so-called "gun show loop hole." It ought to be closed now.0 -
Interesting graphs and numbers, marsellient. The death rates seem to dominated by suicides, which a lot of people dismiss, thinking that couldn't happen in their family. My personal opinion? No way I'd have a gun in the house if I had a teenage son.0
-
I understand the whole "guns don't kill people--people kill people" rationale. However, what that ignores is that there are some potentially huge psychological issues that drive many people to possess guns---like insecurity and paranoia. It is no accident that the most vociferous gun-fetishists are white males--many of whom feel they have been victimized by their loss of privileged status over the past 50 years. Guns make small, weak men feel strong, which is why weak, small-minded men hold on to them with such desperation. And why the election of an African-American President has driven them into such a frenzy. (A strong woman like Hillary Clinton would likely have had the same effect).
So, while "guns may not kill people" when you have as many unbalanced people running around as we do in the US, to me it just makes rational sense to reduce the availability of the most lethal weaponry. Without his phallic AR-15 at hand, perhaps Mr Gibbon would have made more of an effort to get along with his neighbors so that he did not feel so threatened by their pets.
I think you have an anti-gun fetish.0 -
An assault weapons ban is not the only thing being discussed. I happen to agree with you that it would be largely ineffective. How about addressing any of the other measures being discussed instead of continuing the false "BAN! BAN! BAN!" mantra.
the problem is that this is the only thing truly being talked about in earnest.
Not at all. The main thing I hear talked about is closing the so-called gun show loop hole. For example:Our top policy priority is closing the massive hole in the background check system that enables 40% of all gun sales to take place without background checks, not only at gun shows, but also with the added anonymity of the internet. As a result convicted felons, domestic abusers, the dangerously mentally ill and other prohibited purchasers can easily purchase guns with no questions asked. Calling it a “gun show loophole” trivializes the problem. “Universal background checks” on all gun sales would have a clear positive impact on public safety, and is also clearly compatible with the rights of law-abiding citizens to own guns. These policies also tend to enjoy the greatest public support. For example, 92% of Americans and 74% of NRA members support background checks.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/media/press/view/1560/
Sneering about banning shotguns completely misrepresents the actual debate.0 -
By the same token, claiming that everyone wanting to discuss improvements to gun laws wants take away all guns or doesn't care about the safety of their family or must never have been in a dangerous situation or should shut up because the issue was settled in 1791 adds little to a discussion.
At no point have I made any such claim. That's a straw man argument.0
