Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ripsnort on January 18, 2002, 07:16:33 AM
-
The shooter at the Virginia campus. Story was reported by all the major networks. "The shooter was subdued by students at the campus who held him until police arrived". Thats the story you heard, correct? Do you know how the students "subdued" this armed man?
That's the part the national networks chose not to tell you. I applaud the "Today" show for finally telling the whole story. The gunman was subdued by another student who confronted the man with his pistol that he had in his possession while driving by the incident and seeing what was happening..as soon as the gunman was confronted by the armed student, the gunman dropped his weapon and was held by students until police arrived.
Funny how the press chooses not to report this, isn't it.
-
not funny at all
just as Yahoo has Israel's strike in response to the Palestine gunman opening fire on a birthday party of 12 year old girls killing at least 6 and injuring at least 30, they mention Israels counterstrike in headlines but not the TERRORIST attack.... one happened before the other but glancin at just the headlines you wouldn't think so.
Yahoo:
Israeli Planes Hit Palestinian HQ in West Bank
nah, no bias at all
but then u have Fox:
Israel Strikes Back After Birthday Massacre
-
Unfortunately, Fox did not initially report the Virginia incident with the armed student subdueing the shooter either...:(
-
Guns are bad Rip dont you know that? :rolleyes:
Well only one gun is really bad, its that moster Desert Eagle 50Cal semi-auto. I wouldnt fire that thing again if you paid me. Well I would but I'd be scared as hell all over again as I slowly pulled back the trigger. BOOM! But its very well made and very pretty. :)
-
I had to search on cnn.com for the story, it was burried. They made no mention of the gunman who came to the rescue.
They said the murderer was tackled by 3 other students.
On a side note, I did notice another story about an execution here in Tx. Funny how you never hear about executions from other states. :rolleyes:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/01/17/law.school.shooting/index.html
-
Hehe Grun. I'm trying to find that independant study on the web, it was never reported on the main stream press, but the study was done per state, and the states that had lax gun control (ie, if you were not a felon, you could obtain a Concealed Weapons permit) had a lower murder and crime rate per capita than states that had strict gun control.
-
If it says guns in the hands of decent people stop crime then its not a study, its propaganda by the uhh hmmm gun lobby? The republicans? No, I remember now, its Heston's senility..... :)
Bad people will get guns if they want them, gun laws dont stop them- they are criminals they dont obey laws....
-
Now the question is if guns were made illegal would criminals still be able to get them (I would be thinking yes...yes they would)
-
They don't need new guns laws they just need to enforce the ones they have now.
-
an armed society is a polite society
a couple years ago i fired a pistol with MUCH more recoil than that desert eagle .50 ae
this guy i work with had a .454 casul(sp?) BFG that thing would kill on one end and wound on the other.
btw i asked him what the BFG stood for, he wasn't sure but the best we could come up with was 'Big shrecking Gun'
-
oh puhlease eagler.
they always say: "israel responded to a palestinian attack."
well....palestine responded to their houses getting plowed down, their runway getting dug up, rockets, mortars, etc...
you would never hear the news say: "palestine responded to israeli rocket attacks"
they tell arafat to crack down on terrorism and then when there is a lull they go plow sh*t over and rocket people!!!
no that's not provocation... :rolleyes:
-
Firearms Homicides per capita (out of 100,000)
United States 1997 4.61
Argentina 1994 2.11
Hungary 1994 0.23
Finland 1994 0.86
Portugal 1994 1.28
Mauritius 1993 0
Israel 1993 0.72
Italy 1992 1.66
Scotland 1994 0.19
Canada 1992 0.76
Slovenia 1994 0.35
Australia 1994 0.44
Singapore 1994 0.07
South Korea 1994 0.04
New Zealand 1993 0.17
Belgium 1990 0.60
England/Wales 1992 0.11
Switzerland 1994 0.58
Sweden 1993 0.18
Denmark 1993 0.23
Austria 1994 0.42
Germany 1994 0.22
Greece 1994 0.59
France 1994 0.44
Netherlands 1994 0.36
Kuwait 1995 0.36
Norway 1993 0.30
Spain 1993 0.21
Japan 1994 0.02
Ireland 1991 0.03
-
my favorite quote on gun control is an oldie from the tv show all in the family.
Gloria spouts off a statistic about how many people are murderd with handguns
Archie replies "would it make ya feel better little girl if they was pushed out the window?"
-
Okay, then why were these people killed with guns?
-
Okay, then why were these people killed with guns?
Just a guess but maybe because a gun was available. Had there not been a gun available the killer would have had to use a knife, a bomb, poison, a big stick, a car, a rock, or maybe strangled them with a pair of old pantyhose.
I real can't understand how gun control people can be so simplistic in there logic (or lack there of) do they really honestly think somebody makes a decision to kill somebody then it hits them "damn, I don't have a gun... I guess he gets to live"?
It takes a person to be a killer, a gun is just another tool, and when somebody has made up their mind to kill someone I seriously doubt that lack of access to a firearm is going to make them give up and not look for another way.
Also like it or not the fact that the resident might have a gun will give the average burglar a little something to think about.
I live in a fairly rough neighborhood; most of my neighbors have been broken into at least once in the 12 yrs I’ve lived here. I strongly suspect that the silhouette target (with a 12 shot group in the 9-10 zone) that I use as a window shade on the back door might explain why I’ve never been a victim of this
-
Gloria spouts off a statistic about how many people are murderd with handguns
Archie replies "would it make ya feel better little girl if they was pushed out the window?"
It's a lot easier to kill with a gun.
There were several attacks by nutters on schools in the UK in the 90s.
1 involved a man armed with a machete, who broke into a kindergarten and started attacking children and teachers. A woman managed to fend him off, and suffered severe arm injuries.
1 was a man who walked into a school, stabbed a young girl dead before being overpowered by a teacher.
the third was a man in Northern Ireland, who made a flamethrower out of a fire extinguisher and used it in an attack on his former school. Three children were badly burned, but survived.
The fourth was in Dunblane, where a man with a handgun walked into a school and shot 16 children and their teacher dead.
-
Hey Ripsnort.. what's the source of your information?
AKDejaVu
-
I real can't understand how gun control people can be so simplistic in there logic (or lack there of)
Simplistic? Kind of like this?
Gloria spouts off a statistic about how many people are murderd with handguns
Archie replies "would it make ya feel better little girl if they was pushed out the window?"
do they really honestly think somebody makes a decision to kill somebody then it hits them "damn, I don't have a gun... I guess he gets to live"?
You got your self a crime of passion about to happen. A is pissed off at B. A has a gun and blows away B. You got a dead B
Another crime of passion. A is pissed off at B. A has a pair of pantyhose and chases after B with said pantyhose. A realises what is happening...hilarity ensuse. One out of breath, but very alive B.
Simple enough?;)
-
I would rather be strangled with pantyhose, than be shot..
Its A LOT harder to kill somebody without a gun. You can still do it, but you need something that criminals usually lack. Muscles, skills and plan.
ugh
-
Sorry, that "people kill people," while true, doesn't totally fly. If someone is planning to kill someone and a gun is not available, they will use other available weapons. But they are more likely to fail, and they will not be able to kill many people, and hopefully none before being subdued. The other example, a crime of passion (heat of the moment) is given. If the person who loses it and attacks someone has a gun, the other person is a lot more likely to die than if they use a knife, or a board, or pantyhose or whatever. Handgun death statistics are not merely indicative of a high murder rate, they are indicative of greater handgun availability to people, be they criminals or otherwise. People with guns often don't mean to kill, but it happens anyway.
-
So, the spoon is what made Rosie O'Donnell fat, should we outlaw spoons?
Guns are fine. Its the culture, the people that make them lethal.
Deja, it was on a radio talk show local host here within Seattle.
-
I wonder if there are any stats on crimes/murders stopped w/ pantyhose? There have been a crap load of crimes stopped w/ guns. Fact is there are too many guns out there to ever think about getting rid of them. That's without even thinking about how easy it is to make a pop gun or a pipegun.
Here in Texas things "appear" to be better now that there is a concealed carry permit. I haven't seen any actual stats or anything, but I'm not hearing about 6 murders every night on tv like I was before the law. I know I think twice before starting toejam with somebody, never know who's got one ya know.
So when you make guns illegal are you going to then make everything that could be used to make a gun illegal? Hell the anarchist cookbook tells how to make a bomb strong enough to blow your hand off out of a pen, some salt peter, vaseline and another couple of "key" ingrediants ;) Should we make pens illegal?
-
Hey furriners, NEWS FLASH
We don't give a toejam about your opinions on our firearms laws. Don't waste your breath.
-
News!
The new wepon of choice for drive bys
Spud Guns
Use a biodrgradable bullet to kill people!
lol
Fenrir
-
sigh
guns dont kill people..
gun lovers kill people.
-
Is this where I'll find the 2nd Amendment wackos? Been lookin all over for a new group to pummel me since that Evolution thread hit 180. :D
Surprise surprise....I like guns. I like shooting guns for sport. Some guns should be banned though. We don't need citizens with automatic rifles or derringers for that matter.
Guns are good for hunting and sport shooting, they are bad for personal protection. The statistics I believe will back me up on this.
And PLEASE don't tell me the constitution guarantees your right to a gun.:rolleyes:
Fire away (in a manner of speaking)
;)
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
So, the spoon is what made Rosie O'Donnell fat, should we outlaw spoons?
Apples, Oranges. Being fat isn't illegal, shooting someone is.
Guns are fine. Its the culture, the people that make them lethal.
Might agree with you there. Swiss all have assault rifles in their basements. As far as I know they don't go around shooting each other.
What's wrong with US society that they have such a relatively high numer of firearm related homicides?
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Guns are fine. Its the culture, the people that make them lethal.
Sigh. I'm not arguing with you here. That's precisely the point. Believe it or not, I don't think ultra-strict gun control is a solution. Whether you like to acknowledge it or not, the level of gun deaths in this country are quite high. What needs to be done about that is a tough call. Gun control, as you've mentioned, begs the question of personal defense. From my point of view, that's no good reason to own a gun. But other people feel safer with weapons around, and guns do act as a deterrent to would-be criminals if they are present. The problem is one of culture; the question is, where is it?
A thought that I've had: guns are highly available here, both through legitimate and illegitimate means. They are also cheap. Could that be part of the problem? It's so easy to get a gun that people who don't otherwise own them and wouldn't aquire one purchase one when there is dirty work that needs to be done?
I don't think I buy it... it brings us back to the gun control and sale limit discussion, which may not work at all.
-
Looks like we agree on some points. One thing I would like to see before we have any more gun laws on the books is that we start enforcing the ones we already have on the books and making the criminals do the time for the crime.
As to why our US culture is violent in regards to guns? BIG can of worms there, and to be short and to the point, its my opinion that it begins with the family. More quality time spent with parents rather than TV, less divorce, teaching kids fire arm safety thru Fire arms safety training schools,keeping them off of drugs, being "intrusive" into their personal lives in the teenage years...all that combined would prevent about 95% of the violence associated with guns.
-
Since I rarely agree with you Rip, I'll cherish the moment :p.
I think you've got some good points there. I won't discuss them, except that to say WRT to drugs that I think alcohol in particular has been a factor in a number of gun deaths/crimes, IIRC.
Additionally, I think you make a good point with safety classes. Anyone who has not attended a seminar, a class, or in some other way been instructed in the proper care and handling of a firearm should not own one. Guns may not kill people per se, but they are dangerous if not treated and handled with care. I don't think anyone will disagree with that.
-
i think that alot of the problem we have with gun-violence is that most kids are only exposed to guns in a tv/movie setting. they never see responsable gun ownership.
it's like that crappy old tv show 'the a team' kids watch these guys spray bullets around like they're confetti and when the smoke clears everyone is alive and the bad guys are wearring handcuffs.
you take a kid that has seen that kinda thing for 15 years and no exposer to safty trainning or responsable use, and then he gets his hands on a gun and it's no wonder we have problems, i guess some would like to try to get rid of the guns, i'd rather kids where trained to use them responsably.
-
It doesn't take guns to kill a lot of people. People determined to take lives will do it by whatever means necessary. Those that plan their attacks and do the most damage frequently use means other than guns anyway.
Think about all the bombings, not even considering the WTC and Oklahoma. Abortion clinics, European discos (Libyan's favorite target to try to get U.S. soldiers stationed there), and anyplace in Israel have all been bombed extensively.
I don't know about other people and their weapons, but I know for sure that my ownership of an AR-15 and an M1911A1 has not ever contributed to any crimes or deaths of any kind. I have a concealed carry permit and carry the M1911A1 as much as possible within the laws.
My state concluded from studies that its decision to support concealed carry has significantly reduced violent crime rates with no incidents arising from misuse of this license (the anti-gun crowd would be waving any such data around like a flag if any had happened). They extended the license from 3 years to 5 years for the same fee to help increase its popularity with citizens.
-
Tell you what city jim, you turn someone loose who is trained in edged weapons, like say for instance kenjutsu or Aiado, they will kill easily as many people as some tard with a firearm. You don't need to reload your sword/knife either.
It's a moot point in my book. I'll even agree that a firearm is a more proficient device for destruction, as you don't see our infantry forces equipped with Gladiuses any longer. That said, you can't un-invent the wheel, and criminals and evildoers will always can access to the best available tool if they are bent on destruction. Why not allow, and even encourage the populace to train and equip themselves to counter this potential threat? What is so scary here?
I live in Canada, a relatively "unfriendly" country when it comes to owning and using guns. I'm not in the "short barreled" pistol club, nor the 12-5 Prohibited "Assault" weapons category, but take a look at some of the stuff I can legally own and shoot with.
(http://members.shaw.ca/gcornish/pictures/Jan07_22.JPG)
My theory is that if I can procure these devices, somebody bent on doing harm to others certainly can as well. I prefer an equal playing field if it ever came to me or any of my family/friends being on the receiving end of that. It's either that, or a total removal of every gun from society, which is an impossible task. You'll have more luck trying to get people to treat each other respectfully (lol, ya right) than that. Before some of my felow Canucks from the West Coast start claiming that this country is "safer", last year the statistics prove that you are just as likely to be the victim of a violent crime or act as you are in many, and arguably all the States in the Union. Yes, a larger percentage of these assauts are not commited with a gun, when compared to US data, but I really don't care what some crook has in his hand - In my book, anyone with a weapon threatening to use it to hurt the innocent deserves a one way ride to the hospital. I did a ride along a week and a bit ago with a Cop I work on an executive shooting club board with. One ten hour shift - 5 stabbings and one shooting at one single location (It was the Black Swan pub if you wish to look it up), and 3 other various assaults, including another knife/home invasion attack. This is in ONE shift, with ONE unit, in 1/6th the city of Calgary (District 1 PD). Ya, gun/anticrime laws have done wonders here. It was a "slow" night as well, so they said.
Sorry to be posting off-topic in regards to the original post RIP- I enjoyed that factoid you posted very much.
-
ya you got an even playing field there idiot.
just admit you have a gun fetish and dont try to justify it with any claim of you need a sniper rifle in case the guy attacking you has one. Or you need a car15 incase the guy attacking you pulls that instead. If you feel you need that crap to defend yourself in Canada you have serios probelms. In your head not your neigbourhood. The only thing arsenals like that are used for in canada is murder suicides.
ohhh look out..their coming to get you.
-
That was fast.
Thanks for the insults by the way, most appreciated, since I've never even talked to you before.
Do I have a gun fetish? Yep, probably guilty as charged. I also have a foot fetish as well. Feel better now? I don't need to "justify" anything, I was simply stating a point. I can legally own pretty much anything I want, and will continue to do so indefinetly, no matter what folks like you would want. The only unfortunate part is so will the criminals. My point was to show how little effect our supposed "incredibly strict" gun laws have had, when just about anybody can get a hold of what the left wing folks call "assualt weapons" still, be they law abiding citizens, or common thugs.
As for the "only thing guns like that are used for is murder suicides", you just show your ignorance of the statistics.
I've owned stuff like this since 1990. There are over 600 members of my shooting club - one of 15 in town - all of whom have larger personal collections than me. Neither I nor them have embarked on a "murder suicide". Care to explain perhaps why?
BTW, I work for a Law enforcement supply company, and 99% of my stuff is for demo work. This stuff all resides in a stand up vault, I have means to use it for self defense, and I rarely think about it. My points in my earlier posts were hypothetical - it's my opinion that people who want to train with weapons, particualarly for self defense, should be allowed to.
Hey Pongo, ever been to Swtizerland? Over half of the homes have a lot more firearms than mine for certain, mostly at government expense, yet they have one of the lowest crime rates on the planet, right up there with Japan. Quelle Dommage! It must just be a fluke.
-
Yes. I own guns. No. I don't like them. If we could get the same kind of legal set up the British have, I would cheerfully chuck them in the nearest river.
-
Well, Gman certainly has right to own guns, and to enjoy shoting guns. Another sort of martial art, I guess. Karate isn't illegal, is it? Since it's his right and his perogative, owning them isn't the issue. Justifying the ownership of a pistol, AR-15, sniper rifle, 12-guage and whatever else as self-defense is silly though. I don't have a problem with people that like guns. It is enjoyable and perfectly reasonable to enjoy shooting guns as a hobby. Most people who do it aren't just practicing to shoot people, in self-defense or not. They are practicing a hobby that they enjoy, and they do so safely and legally. Why jump on them like that. Hell, that's one less AR-15 for a madman to get hold of.
So, own ten guns, or twenty or a hundred if you like. Just don't say that you own all those guns for self-defense, because you don't need more than one or two. Neither I nor many others have any problem with someone who enjoys shooting and owning guns, as long as you keep it pointed at a target on a safe range.
Pongo, please get a grip. You aren't helping your side of the issue.
-
Originally posted by easymo
Yes. I own guns. No. I don't like them. If we could get the same kind of legal set up the British have, I would cheerfully chuck them in the nearest river.
1st step would be to shrink the US down to the size of less than Texas, reduce our pop to equal the brits and give our coppers some funny lookin hats :) .... guns, a necessary evil for many now a days. Though I've never owned one, besides a C02 bb pistol, if I didn't have kids or lived where one was needed, I'd have the biggest baddest weapon I could handle and the entire neighborhood would know it. Target window shades would add a good touch to my message, have to remember that one :)
-
I don't own any firearms for self defence, they are for shooting enjoyment and for my work.
No such thing as a CCW permit up here (actually, there is, but they NEVER issue it, unless you can prove you are in imminent danger - ie you're already dead), so self defence isn't an "approved" argument in this neck of the woods, more is the pity.
My points were hypothetical, as I stated before: If a criminal has easy access to something they can use against me, or the rest of the general populace, the public should have access to it as well, especially when the gov't shows no signs of making a difference either way.
BTW, if Canada is SO safe, and me thinking that people should be able to defend themselves if they so choose makes me "have a problem in my head, not my neighbourhood", maybe explain the 290,000 VIOLENT criminal acts we have here a year.
Oh, ya, I forgot, the anti-gun/defense people think that statistics only work to prove THEM correct.
http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/000718/d000718a.htm
Read em and weep.
-
Hehe, it looks like Canada is getting safer and safer. Maybe I'll move there someday ;).
Gman, you're welcome of course. What's funny is that even six months ago I would be arguing against you. I've had a slight change in outlook, however. Taking guns away, or restricting ownership would be unconstitutional, and it's not worth the grief. While it makes me a bit nervous that people can pretty easily aquire weapons like AR-15s and sniper rifles, most of the ones that do are safe and responsible. They are not criminals, and are in most cases completely aware of the responsibility that they have to be safe. And while guns are not uncommonly the tools of violent crime, they also have a certain deterrence value to them. While I'm sure that we all hate there was no violent crime in our world, this is not the case. There are plenty of people, like streak, who carry weapons and would never even consider contributing to the violent crime in this country. While it isn't something I'd ever do, which has to do my personal beliefs, ownership of a gun is not a crime, and has been shown to help prevent it.
Yes, you can use a knife as well - against what? You are far more likely to have to use a knife for personal defense than a gun. The gun wins hands down. Besides, bladed weapons are heavily restricted as well. I don't know about other states, but it is illegal in Massachusetts to carry any double edged blade, or any that is more than five or six inches in length. Anything longer must be dulled.
As much as I didn't like to admit it at first, the pro second amendment side of the debate has a lot more common sense going for it. Most pro gun control arguments are based on hysteria and fear of guns, rather than the people who use them irresponsibly, illegaly, or lethaly.
-
Oh, ya, I forgot, the anti-gun/defense people think that statistics only work to prove THEM correct.
http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/000718/d000718a.htm
Read em and weep.
I looked at the stats, I'm not weeping. Crime has gone down since mandatory gun registration. heheh
What do you see in the stats?
-
Another Second Amendment Debate? Kewl!
I would like to say this about that:
The 2nd Amendment (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16459)
and furthermore,
A Parody (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16468)
not to mention
"Guns, the other side ", O-Club, 10-05-2000 (Sorry this and the next 2 no longer seem to have a thread ID number... you will have to find them by title and date.)
Of course, there is this one, which I am sure the Canadians will remember although it may be getting a bit out of date:
"Registered Perfection In Canada", O-Club, 10-13-2000
Wouldn't want to forget this one either:
"Of Cars and Guns and the Nature of Man (quite long)", O-Club, 10-04-2000
So, like Forrest Gump... "that's all I have to say about that!"
(Except that for some of us, this is WELL-PLOWED ground. :D)
Enjoy!
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Is this where I'll find the 2nd Amendment wackos? Been lookin all And PLEASE don't tell me the constitution guarantees your right to a gun.:rolleyes:
I think I found three guys that WILL tell you that.
Check this link:
United States vs Emerson (http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/99/99-10331-cr0.htm)
VII. Conclusion...
...We agree with the district court that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to privately keep and bear their own firearms that are suitable as individual, personal weapons and are not of the general kind or type excluded by Miller, regardless of whether the particular individual is then actually a member of a militia."
I'll let you argue with them though. Their opinion is a little more important than mine... because these three guys are presiding justices over the US Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
They probably know that law and Constitution stuff a little better than I do. :D
-
Thanks for the article on the 5th district's decision Toad. I actually read it. :D It is very clear that this decision is a one-of and actually by many acounts (within that same article) is at odds with the Supreme Courts ruling in Miller. I would love to see if this one gets reviewed by the Supreme Court.
In US vs. Miller the SC said:
First, it contends that the right secured by the Second Amendment is "only one which exists where the arms are borne in the militia or some other military organization provided for by law and intended for the protection of the state." Id. at 15. This, in essence, is the sophisticated collective rights model.
The second of the government's two arguments in Miller is reflected by the following passage from its brief:
"While some courts have said that the right to bear arms includes the right of the individual to have them for the protection of his person and property as well as the right of the people to bear them collectively (People v. Brown, 253 Mich. 537; State v. Duke, 42 Tex. 455), the cases are unanimous in holding that the term "arms" as used in constitutional provisions refers only to those weapons which are ordinarily used for military or public defense purposes and does not relate to those weapons which are commonly used by criminals. Thus in Aymette v. State [2 Humph., Tenn. 154 (1840)], supra, it was said (p. 158):
'As the object for which the right to keep and bear arms is secured, is of general and public nature, to be exercised by the people in a body, for their common defence, so the arms, the right to keep which is secured, are such as are usually employed in civilized warfare, and that constitute the ordinary military equipment. If the citizens have these arms in their hands, they are prepared in the best possible manner to repel any encroachments upon their rights by those in authority. They need not, for such a purpose, the use of those weapons which are usually employed in private broils, and which are efficient only in the hands of the robber and the assassin. These weapons would be useless in war. They could not be employed advantageously in the common defence of the citizens. The right to keep and bear them, is not, therefore, secured by the constitution.'" (Id. at 18-19).(16)
All this is from the same page as cited by Toad.
Well........what could be more clear?;)
-
Back to the thread guys...the story: Gun owner pulls a weapon on the bad guy, thus saving many more lives...media doesn't report the fact that the bad guy was overpowered by a licensed fire arm owner. Is it media bias?
-
Now that is something I didn't know, thanks Rip for the info.
sorry Rip, just saw your last post as I posted mine. Yes it does look like media bias. Media should be impartial and shouldn't have agendas attached, but it seems sometimes it does. I wish I could get FOX news at 5:00 am here. Pls ignore the rest of my post if necessary, it's only about gun control and my personal take
As for gun control, we don't have concealed cary in Hawaii, and I heard our laws are pretty strict. We had a bad shooting a little while ago involving a disgruntled employee of Xerox that ended in seven deaths I think. I remember seeing one of the victims come to my workplace to fix our machine when I was in college. My father knew one of the victims too, since he worked in the document reproduction dept of KPMG. The suspect is now in prison. Typical of these incidences is the debate about gun control and concealed carry that rage immediately after the incident. However, due to the culture here in Hawaii, I definitely doubt concealed carry will happen. It just feels to me that most people here wouldn't be ready for that kind of responsibility. Not because of any particular faults, but more likely due to the amount of exposure to firearms average people have here. I know there are countries in Europe where people can own "assault weapons," and even silencers for them (from the hkpro.com board), and considering the differences in society and culture I don't think it would work here in Hawaii anyway. Immediately after the WTC attacks though, there were people who previously never considered buying firearms actually changing their minds and getting a weapon (though not for concealed carry obviously).
Personally, I was in my high school Rifle Team for all four years (we shot .22 rimfire match rifles at US Army 3-position targets for 50 ft. distance). When I hear about people with "sniper weapons," I don't immediately envision some wacko who wants to hole him/herself up in some high place and start randomly shooting at people. It's about a sport, long range shooting. I don't know how it feels to shoot a well balanced and prepped match rifle with match ammo at a target 600m away and get groups only a couple inches in diameter, but from my few years on the rifle team I think I'd enjoy it. I'm sure not everyone feels the same though (not speaking about anyone on this board), and I think they should be taught that not everyone who feels the need to kit themselves out with a custom high powered rifle is a threat to society. I would personally not dream of hurting other people because of my own problems. Currently, I try to fill my marksmanship urges through archery. Got myself an olympic style recurve, some arrows, and now a pretty good sight. One day dream of being able to get consistent groups at 70m (never tried that range yet b/c I only got myself a sight last week). Hm.. how would you describe the long range shooting sport and it's feel without a firearm or something construed as dangerous? How about being able to shoot baskets from 3/4 court all day? Or being able to hit holes in one or second-shot holes (Eagle? )?
Sorry for straying from the thread and rambling, but I guess it kinda has something to do with everything here. I don't think concealed carry would work everywhere, but I'm against complete gun control. A lot of it has to do with how people are brought up (to control and manage their rage, be considerate of others, how firearms are viewed, etc.). Revealing yourself as a gun owner shouldn't result in the other person taking a step back away from you.
mauser
(who may get brave enough to try out his new sight this weekend)
-
Good post Mauser.
-
Well said ,
Rip, the media should report the news if that is what they claim to be reporting. I wonder if there might be some other reason for the omission you claim other than "liberal bias".
As for guns, I have no problem with them. I enjoy watching the biathlon during the winter Olympics (yea yea...go ahead), and other shooting competitions. I once owned a S&W 38 snub. I sold it when the kids came along because it was single action and I worried too much. I think people should be free to own whatever the Government allows. I just don't believe the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution guarantees that right, and the Supreme Court seems to agree.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I think people should be free to own whatever the Government allows.
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO :D
180 degrees out of phase there man.
SHould be the government owns what ever the people allow it to own :) (i know that part has been forgotten but it's still the way it supposed to work)
-
Absolutely Udie! We need MORE big brother like a lump on the head.
-
Yeah...guns are just plain evil. I mean, whoever owns a gun must harbor a murderer inside....as well as these fine individuals.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/asia-pacific/newsid_1074000/1074427.stm
http://www.civilrightsunion.org/acluwatch/baseball.htm
http://www.itp.berkeley.edu/~asam121/vincent.html
Let's start a bat control law.
Gimme a break. Yes, guns make it easier to kill, but if someone really wants to murder another person, anything will do.
-
You are absolutely right Udie (that was painful to type). What I meant to say is that the right to own firearms is regulated by law, and we all know where the laws come from.......right?
:cool:
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
You are absolutely right Udie (that was painful to type). What I meant to say is that the right to own firearms is regulated by law, and we all know where the laws come from.......right?
:cool:
This isn't the first time i've typed this here BUT :D
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.
my interpretation :rolleyes:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, ....
The punctuation seems to fit you're belief that arms are for Militia only, it (the punctuation) also denotes that a militia is necessary to keep your state free. I take this to mean that incase they have to remove a tyranical government, but ofcourse it could be to protect us from 1,000,000 diferent threats.
...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
This is where da beef is :) I think from my highlighting you can get my point hehe. To me this says that there should be NO regulation what so ever that could infringe upon any citizens right to keep and bear. I take this to the extreme meaning that I should be able to walk down the street bearing an arm (3 arms) ;) Now I'm not nieve enough to think that will ever happen again, nor do I want to live in a society that everybody is packign heat all day. I do however think that crime would drop by 90% if that were to happen. Then we'd be left w/ the 10% sicko's with guns, that's the reason I don't want it like that.
Now, the 2nd admendment could be changed. They left a mechanism for that. BUT :D I think that would be a sad day in our nations history and would most likely lead to civil war 2, which would be when Big Brother really takes over. Honestly I wouldn't doubt it if there's already a "plan" for this. How could we stop them now if we actually needed to? But that get's into my paranoia ;)
back to work........
-
Well according to the SC in Miller vs USA the 2nd ammendment applies only to well regulated militias, and applies to "those weapons which are ordinarily used for military or public defense purposes and does not relate to those weapons which are commonly used by criminals."
Nowhere (that I have seen) has the SC ruled that we all have the right to bear arms.
BTW..Media bias is bad:D just trying to stay on topic.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Well according to the SC in Miller vs USA the 2nd ammendment applies only to well regulated militias, and applies to "those weapons which are ordinarily used for military or public defense purposes and does not relate to those weapons which are commonly used by criminals."
Nowhere (that I have seen) has the SC ruled that we all have the right to bear arms.
BTW..Media bias is bad:D just trying to stay on topic.
well one of these day's I'm going to write the essay I've been thinking of for about 2 years now of why the USA won't survive. Maybe it's because Im a glass half full kinda person. I'm too damn lazy to write it though hehehehehe.
stupid dopers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
media is biased!!!!!! :P rip
-
Target: "by many acounts (within that same article) is at odds with the Supreme Courts ruling in Miller"
Like most things legal written by lawyers, United States Vs Miller is open to interpretation.
However, the sentence in the Conclusion of US V Emerson is about as clear as I've ever seen a lawyer write. "...the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to privately keep and bear their own firearms that are suitable as individual, personal weapons ..."
Note the reference to Miller deals with arms of a type that are excluded from protection under the Second. IE, not all arms are allowed by the Second.
Here's a short summary of the positions by theUniversity of Missouri at Kansascity Legal department.
The Issue: Does the Second Amendment Give Individuals a Right to Bear Arms? (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/beararms.htm)
"Introduction
The meaning of the Second Amendment depends upon who you talk to.
The National Rifle Association, which has the Second Amendment (minus the militia clause) engraved on its headquarters building in Washington, insists that the Amendment guarantees the right of individuals to possess and carry a wide variety of firearms.
Advocates of gun control contend that the Amendment was only meant to guarantee to States the right to operate militias.
The Supreme Court could easily resolve this debate, but ever since the cryptic decision of U. S. vs. Miller in 1939, the Court has ducked the issue.
Miller is subject to two possible interpretations. One, that the Second Amendment is an individual right, but that the right only extends to weapons commonly used in militias (the defendants in Miller were transporting sawed-off shotguns). The second--broader--view of Miller is that the Amendment guarantees no rights to individuals at all.
There is also a second open question concerning the Second Amendment: If it does create a right of individuals to own firearms, is the right enforceable against state regulation as well as against federal regulation?
In 1876, the Supreme Court said the right--if it existed--was enforceable only against the federal government, but there's been a wholesale incorporation of Bill of Rights provisions into the 14th Amendment since then, and it's not clear that the Court would come to the same conclusion today. In Quilici vs Morton Grove, a case involving a challenge to a Chicago suburb's ban on the possession of handguns, the Seventh Circuit concluded that the right was not enforceable against the states.
The third case posted here is U. S. vs Emerson. Emerson offers a thorough historical and textual analysis of the Second Amendment supporting its conclusion that the Amendment was intended to protect the right of individuals to own and carry firearms. In October, 2001, the Fifth Circuit upheld the validity of federal firearm statute at issue in Emerson as a narrowly tailored reasonable restriction on Second Amendment rights--but, importantly, the court held that the Second Amendment does guarantee individuals the right to possess firearms, not just members of "militias."
I personally would like to see the Supremes take this up and deal with it once and for all. Sure save us all a lot of vitriol and wasted money funding the pro and con groups. :)
However, given the ambiguity of Miller and the clarity of Emerson it would seem for now that the interpretation that the Second Amendment is an individual right, (but that the right only extends to weapons commonly used in militias) has the most support within the US judiciary.
Also, note two things. So far, Emerson hasn't been appealed to the Supremes, nor have they expressed any interest in dealing with the Second. So they are letting Emerson stand. hmmmmm
Also, note that Emerson specifically mentions that milita weapons are OK... not non-militia weapons like Miller dealt with (sawed-off shotguns). So, this would mean in a Federal context that assault weapons (Ak-47, SKS, M-16's) are allowed. Quilici vs Morton allows STATES to restrict them, however.
-
Interesting stuff Toad,
Lets say Militia type weapons are the only ones guaranteed. Would that not leave the possibility to rule out all small caliber handguns, some sport shooting rifles, pellet guns....etc?
Bias is still bad!:D