The right to bear arms

17810121318

Replies

  • ArroganceInStep
    ArroganceInStep Posts: 6,239 Member

    The gun was the tool, treat the disease not just the symptom.
  • treetop57
    treetop57 Posts: 1,578 Member
    Or both.
  • _Timmeh_
    _Timmeh_ Posts: 2,096 Member
    having a gun may have saved this woman and her children's lives.

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/georgia-mom-hiding-kids-shoots-intruder/story?id=18164812

    He will turn around and sue her.

    In Georgia? Extremely unlikely. The guy got what he deserved.

    Oh that is true. This is not California!

    Yep. Out here he woulda sued and won cause some bleeding hearts felt bad for the guy and not the victimized home owner.
  • tsh0ck
    tsh0ck Posts: 1,970 Member

    The gun was the tool, treat the disease not just the symptom.

    and it was a shotgun. so, I guess, we ban those now, too?
  • Lozze
    Lozze Posts: 1,917 Member
    and it was a shotgun. so, I guess, we ban those now, too?

    No but you notice the difference in casualty rates?

    I would like to know how this kid got the gun though.
  • tsh0ck
    tsh0ck Posts: 1,970 Member
    and it was a shotgun. so, I guess, we ban those now, too?

    No but you notice the difference in casualty rates?

    I would like to know how this kid got the gun though.

    there's a reason for the difference -- and it wasn't the weapon. he only shot a few times. hit once, missed the second. the teacher and another adult talked him down. if he was full-on whacked out like our previous shooters, many more would have died.
  • Lozze
    Lozze Posts: 1,917 Member
    If he had a higher capacity weapon there's a good chance the teacher would have been dead.
  • tsh0ck
    tsh0ck Posts: 1,970 Member
    If he had a higher capacity weapon there's a good chance the teacher would have been dead.

    why? he was targeting students. sounds like bullying. teacher got his students out and then talked the student into dropping the gun. this was a kid not fully committed to killing like the ones in the past, thankfully.

    I promise you, a shotgun, in a close-range situation, is far more deadly than a .223.
  • ArroganceInStep
    ArroganceInStep Posts: 6,239 Member
    Or both.

    And yet if you look back through this thread the VAST majority of posts have been on the necessities of gun control, the only valid argument I can recall (and admittedly this is from memory since I'm not going to reread the whole thing) was azdak saying to impose a tax on guns and ammunition and apply it towards mental health care.
    If he had a higher capacity weapon there's a good chance the teacher would have been dead.
    If all you're going off of is that article, you have absolutely no idea what happened. All it says is there was a gun, one person is at the hospital while another refused treatment, and schools are on lockdown. How the heck can you know if a higher capacity weapon would have changed anything?
  • doorki
    doorki Posts: 2,611 Member
    I see three prongs to this issue:

    1) Lack of mental health help and a the existing stigma that is attached to someone who may need mental help. My wife was an EMT in the FDNY and she tells me tales of NYPD and FDNY employees being committed over supposedly benign things said to a psychiatrist. This would then put their future employment in jeopardy. Regardless whether these stories are true, they serve to keep people from seeking help they may require.

    2) It is too easy for people to acquire guns. With the gun show loop et al, any regulation that exists is easily by-passed.

    3) This nation has a gun fetish. We see guns as a tool, a sign of strength and the answer to all problems. This kid at Taft felt bullied and he saw shooting them as a valid recourse. I have heard people here say that they carry a gun so no one will mess with them. It appears, to me, that we have lost the view that a gun, and killing as a whole, is a last resort rather than the opening salvo.

    These are my coffee addled thoughts.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    I see three prongs to this issue:

    1) Lack of mental health help and a the existing stigma that is attached to someone who may need mental help. My wife was an EMT in the FDNY and she tells me tales of NYPD and FDNY employees being committed over supposedly benign things said to a psychiatrist. This would then put their future employment in jeopardy. Regardless whether these stories are true, they serve to keep people from seeking help they may require.

    2) It is too easy for people to acquire guns. With the gun show loop et al, any regulation that exists is easily by-passed.

    3) This nation has a gun fetish. We see guns as a tool, a sign of strength and the answer to all problems. This kid at Taft felt bullied and he saw shooting them as a valid recourse. I have heard people here say that they carry a gun so no one will mess with them. It appears, to me, that we have lost the view that a gun, and killing as a whole, is a last resort rather than the opening salvo.

    These are my coffee addled thoughts.

    I wrote (a lot) earlier on the topic of the gun fetish, and have been tempted several times reading through these comments to write a lot more. One thing comes to mind: would George Zimmerman have gone after Trayvon Martin the way he did if he had not been armed? Handguns make weak, insecure, (mostly) men feel empowered and strong in a way that often has disastrous consequences.

    But as to your topic #3, there was once a type of moral "gun control" that you allude to, and even a legal one as well. By that I mean that, even when someone used a gun in a supposedly "self-defense" situation, they were still responsible for their actions. If they used deadly force irresponsibly or recklessly, they could be held liable for both legal and civil penalties.

    (I am referring to incidents outside the home--I think the laws have correctly given the benefit of the doubt to those who use guns against intruders in their homes).

    One of the ongoing campaigns of the NRA over the past 15 years or so has been the systematic removal of accountability and consequence for misuse of a firearm. Things like "stand your ground" laws and the prohibition of legal or civil remedies in many shooting incidents have led to people seeing using gun violence as a first resort rather than a last resort.
  • summertime_girl
    summertime_girl Posts: 3,945 Member
    This was on my local news yesterday. I am HORRIFIED.


    Couple outraged after neighbor shoots, kills family dog
    Woman: I don't feel safe here


    HAMPSTEAD, N.H. —A Hampstead family is heartbroken and outraged after they said their neighbor shot and killed their pet dog, but the neighbor said he was only protecting his own animals.

    Judy Galietta said her 6-year-old Brittany spaniel, Sadie, was shot and killed on Jan. 5 after getting into a neighbor's yard.

    "I got over there, (and) I knew she was dead. I picked up her head... and at that point, I knew she was... She was gone," said Galietta.

    Galietta and her husband, Fred, are beyond angry at homeowner Christopher Gibbons, who they said shot their dog.

    "He showed his true colors. He's a coward," said Fred Galietta.

    Gibbons told police he awoke that Saturday morning to a dog barking at his rabbits.

    According to a police report, Gibbons told officers "he yelled at the dog, but it continued barking at the rabbits with every breath, circling the cage. He went and got his rifle (AR-15 .223 caliber) and fired a shot to scare the dog away." When it didn’t work, Gibbons said he shot and killed the dog.

    The Galiettas said they've had long-standing problems with the target shooting the retired Manchester police officer does in his back yard. The couple said a number of other neighbors are also upset.

    "It's not only the dog owners, people are worried that a stray bullet might be coming into their back yard," said Fred Galietta.

    Gibbons' wife told News 9 that "there's a lot of misinformation out there, but this was a vicious attack. The dog was ripping off the back of the cage, and we had to protect our animals."

    Authorities said state law regarding loose dogs and protection of domestic animals is on Gibbons' side, but the Galiettas said the shooting may have been legal, but it wasn’t right.

    "I don’t feel safe here... I don’t even feel safe in the house," said Judy Galietta.


    ____________


    Legal to shoot an AR-15 in a residential neighborhood, and legal to shoot a dog with no repercussions. I'm just disgusted.
  • ArroganceInStep
    ArroganceInStep Posts: 6,239 Member
    Legal to shoot an AR-15 in a residential neighborhood, and legal to shoot a dog with no repercussions. I'm just disgusted.

    To play devil's advocate, what should the person have done to get the dog out of his yard, assuming it was, in fact, attacking his rabbits?
  • doorki
    doorki Posts: 2,611 Member
    Legal to shoot an AR-15 in a residential neighborhood, and legal to shoot a dog with no repercussions. I'm just disgusted.

    To play devil's advocate, what should the person have done to get the dog out of his yard, assuming it was, in fact, attacking his rabbits?

    Bang on a pot or pan loudly, spray the dog with the hose, etc. This guy's first instinct was deadly force, isn't there something wrong with that?
  • ArroganceInStep
    ArroganceInStep Posts: 6,239 Member
    Bang on a pot or pan loudly, spray the dog with the hose, etc. This guy's first instinct was deadly force, isn't there something wrong with that?

    Actually the first instict was to fire a warning shot. I don't know about you but if a gunshot doesn't scare off a dog I'm not going near it...and I love dogs.
  • lour441
    lour441 Posts: 543 Member
    Bang on a pot or pan loudly, spray the dog with the hose, etc. This guy's first instinct was deadly force, isn't there something wrong with that?

    Actually the first instict was to fire a warning shot. I don't know about you but if a gunshot doesn't scare off a dog I'm not going near it...and I love dogs.

    That is pretty sad. That breed of dog is not known to be aggressive. It probably just wanted to play with the animals.

    As far as the warning shot goes... The owner was known to shoot at targets in their backyard. The dog was probably used to *that* noise.
  • ArroganceInStep
    ArroganceInStep Posts: 6,239 Member
    That is pretty sad. That breed of dog is not known to be aggressive. It probably just wanted to play with the animals.

    As far as the warning shot goes... The owner was known to shoot at targets in their backyard. The dog was probably used to *that* noise.

    Totally agree, I think there's a tremendous argument to be made for disallowing target shooting in his backyard if there are neighbors nearby.

    Given that that wasn't the case though, I don't think you can legally expect someone to go up to a dog and scare them off if a gunshot doesn't do it.
  • summertime_girl
    summertime_girl Posts: 3,945 Member
    How about do the neighborly thing, and CALL the owners? Or go over there, rather than taking a shot out the window? All the dog was doing was barking.
  • ArroganceInStep
    ArroganceInStep Posts: 6,239 Member
    How about do the neighborly thing, and CALL the owners? Or go over there, rather than taking a shot out the window? All the dog was doing was barking.
    The dog was ripping off the back of the cage, and we had to protect our animals.

    If I felt another animal was going to threaten one of my pets, I'd kill it too. This is getting a bit off topic though, and for that I apologize.
  • KimmyEB
    KimmyEB Posts: 1,208 Member
    How about do the neighborly thing, and CALL the owners? Or go over there, rather than taking a shot out the window? All the dog was doing was barking.

    Three sides to every story. One of those sides said that the dog was all up on the cages and such. And like rtalencar85 said, if a warning shot doesn't scare it away....well, sorry dog lovers, but **** that. I'd shoot it, too. Just like I'd shoot any animal coming at me/my pets like that.