View Full Version : Virginia Tech-AGAIN
San Onofre Guy
12-8-11, 3:48pm
I know that the Gun Lovers will take issue with me, but enough with all of the killing already!
Growing up in the State of Maine where hunting was a way of life, not for me, I know very well how to handle firearms. I also sadly knew three people injured or killed in "Accidents".
The first involved a friend walking home from the late bus. He had stayed after school for basketball and got off the bus at dusk. Walking home from the bus stop along the edge of a field a hunter thought he was a deer. This victim has been a paraplegic in a chair since.
The second involved two friends "playing" with a rifle. It fired a round, one kid dead!
The third involved two brothers in their early twenties who coincidentally lived down the road from victim number one. One brother was doing tricks with a handgun, quickdraw and twirling it on his finger. Gun fired older brother dead!
Don't give me that line "guns don't kill people, people kill people."
The only people I have known who need handguns are/were (1) a trapper friend who shot animals caught in his traps but still alive. (2) police. (3) some active duty in war zone members of the armed forces.
I can understand people wanting to shoot at a range, but most ranges rent handguns to shooters who don't own their own.
I am now stepping down from my soapbox.
So what is your suggestion? That we criminalize the possession of weapons in order to prevent accidents or intentional acts by actual criminals?
Criminal or negligent misuse of any number of things can kill people. Where should we draw the line? At what point does the added safety compensate for the lost freedom?
Not to put too fine of a point on it, this is America, we don't generally write our laws based on whether we "need" something.
I know many civilians who are only alive and healthy today because they possessed a firearm and the ability to use it properly in self-defense. My wife and I among them. Dozens of battered women I have instructed. A man who lives down the lane who suffered a home invasion a few years back. A famous civil rights attorney who is a friend of mine. Etc.
I had a fine day yesterday afternoon at the Seattle Police range, where the nice Seattle Police Department sold me two fine handguns at a very frugal price. I even got some quality instruction from one of their top trainers.
Now, once you're done stopping the US government from selling guns to Mexican drug gangs, and laundering money for them, get back to us.
Gardenarian
12-8-11, 5:11pm
After seeing "Bowling for Columbine", I came to the conclusion that the lack of a social safety net causes more violence than lenient gun laws. My .02.
Criminal or negligent misuse of any number of things can kill people. Where should we draw the line? At what point does the added safety compensate for the lost freedom?
Apparently anywhere they want - per TSA:
All liquids, gels and aerosols must be in 3.4 ounce (100ml) or smaller containers. Larger containers that are half-full or toothpaste tubes rolled up are not allowed. Each container must be 3.4 ounces (100ml) or smaller.
All liquids, gels and aerosols must be placed in a single, quart-size, zip-top, clear plastic bag. Gallon size bags or bags that are not zip-top such as fold-over sandwich bags are not allowed. Each traveler can use only one, quart-size, zip-top, clear plastic bag.
Each traveler must remove their quart-sized plastic, zip-top bag from their carry-on and place it in a bin or on the conveyor belt for X-ray screening. X-raying separately will allow TSA security officers to more easily examine the declared items.
Oh - and you can't bring your gun on, either. Or gel-shoe inserts.
The point being - we do draw lines. Should it be just airplanes? Or airplanes and other places?
iris lily
12-8-11, 10:59pm
OP you are more than a little sanctimonious by opining that no one needs guns. I live in one of the most crime ridden zip codes in the U.S. and I wonder what your crime rate is there.
Your examples of gun deaths don't illustrate your point: two of the situations were youth playing with guns. In the long run that does service for our collective gene pool. The hunter accident wasn't a hand gun and was hardly the result of intended maliciousness. How many people do you know in the same circle who died or were seriously injured in an auto accident?
Recently in my city there was a house break in at night. The man of the house was there. He was a cop. Oops! Perp dead. Cops aim for the head and dispatch their business quickly.
Another for our side.
I take my gun on planes all the time. And I just spent two hours at the airport today, while armed. No worries there.
If we are to use the TSA as the standard of our civil liberties, I guess I am going to have to learn to go barefoot and naked.
It is a fact that people do get hurt or killed by firearms. It appears that we need to do everything we can to protect members of our society from any threat. To be thorough we simply need to apply the same logic to some other threats we face (usually far more often than we face the muzzle of a gun). More people drown than are shot every year so all swimming pools should be filled in immediately and, of course, lakes and rivers should be completely off limits. Hundreds or even thousands are maimed or killed every year in farm accidents. Farmers need to have their equipment confiscated today! The rest of us will be fine foraging. Just about every phase of oil exploration and production involves some risk to life and limb not to mention the wanton destruction of life caused when we burn fossil fuels. Stop that madness today! Prescription drugs? OMG, shut that industry down yesterday because they are killing more people weekly than guns do in a whole year! Oh, and cars!!! I almost forgot about cars...
San Onofre Guy, I'm sorry if it sounded like I was making light of the tragic circumstances you listed in your OP. That isn't my intent, but I do think the blame is misplaced in your post. You didn't exactly say what it is you're proposing, but from the overall tone it sounded like a ban was in your mind. Think about this: if the brother twirling the handgun had simply checked to make sure it wasn't loaded (gun safety 101 as taught in the very first session of most firearm safety classes) then that gun would have posed no more danger to anyone than a hammer or a skillet or juggling balls. Its not completely unreasonable to think about requiring a safety class prior to the legal purchase of a gun. That would do little or nothing to curb criminal violence, but it could certainly help reduce instances like those in you OP.
freein05
12-10-11, 11:48am
I agree there are just too many guns in this country. In my 66 years of life I have never felt the need to be armed even when I was the manager of a bank and three guys came in with guns drawn. One stood at the door with a shotgun the other two had pistols. One went down the teller line making unauthorized withdrawals. The other came over to my desk and not so politely told me to hang up the phone. What good would a gun have done me!
I agree there are just too many guns in this country. In my 66 years of life I have never felt the need to be armed even when I was the manager of a bank and three guys came in with guns drawn. One stood at the door with a shotgun the other two had pistols. One went down the teller line making unauthorized withdrawals. The other came over to my desk and not so politely told me to hang up the phone. What good would a gun have done me!
I'll bet if you'd had a sign on the door indicating that all employees were armed, those three guys would have gone elsewhere. Just sayin!
Owning a guitar doesn't make you a musician. Similarly, having a gun doesn't magically protect you by its presence. You need to have some skill in its use.
Three men tried to kidnap a good friend of mine a few months ago, in Santiago de Cali. They failed - two fled wounded, one was too injured to flee. My friend was uninjured. He was armed, and responded with decisive force and skill. In his case, a gun was helpful.
Some other people I know found guns helpful once...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzPShrawxLc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMCEZaMh77I
I'll bet if you'd had a sign on the door indicating that all employees were armed, those three guys would have gone elsewhere. Just sayin!
I don't think they could read. The police caught them a few blocks from the bank with no injuries.
iris lily
12-10-11, 2:16pm
I don't think they could read. The police caught them a few blocks from the bank with no injuries.
But there could be a universal icon developed for that reality. Agreed, the average perp cannot or does not read. Some people here have put signs on their car "Doors are unlocked" but still the eeejits break windows to get in.
But there could be a universal icon developed for that reality. Agreed, the average perp cannot or does not read. Some people here have put signs on their car "Doors are unlocked" but still the eeejits break windows to get in.
That's just sad on so many levels Iris Lily.
From the 1980s on, note the trend of the laws concerning law abiding citizens being able to carry firearms:
http://www.gun-nuttery.com/rtc.gif
The streets have not been running red with blood as a result of the changes.
See also the latest edition of John Lott's study:
http://mchenrycountyblog.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/More-Guns-Less-Crime.png
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.