More Sandy Hook fallout

Reply

  #1  
Old 01-06-13, 03:49 PM
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,188
More Sandy Hook fallout

The sadness and anger hasn't subsided yet following the Sandy Hook tragedy and our local politicians are trying to capitalize on it.

Last week the governor had a televised press conference addressing "the problem." It was entirely about gun control (although he didn't have the political sac to use those words). Assault weapon bans (am I the only person that's not quite sure what an assault weapon is), and magazine size restrictions were his main points. I wanted to ask him if he had a clue about how long it takes to change a mag and how much difference it would make.

Friday a state legislator introduced legislation that would make it legal for the press or anyone else to get a list of registered handgun owners so that it can be published. IMO that tramples on at least two rights guaranteed by the constitution.

Crack head #1 "I need a piece man" Crack head #2 "let's check the list of gun owners and hit their house after they leave for work"

Yesterday I applied for a handgun permit.
 
Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old 01-06-13, 04:06 PM
Tolyn Ironhand's Avatar
Group Moderator
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 12,259
I tried to make the same point in another post about high cap mags. So either the crazy gunmen gets off 30 rounds in 20-25 seconds, or 30 rounds in 60 seconds with 2 mag changes. How about stop the crazy people from getting in the schools, and stop them from getting guns in the first place?

"Assault Weapon" is a term use for a weapon that has a particular set of cosmetic features. AKA: it looks scary.

Info found here: Federal Assault Weapons Ban - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merely the possession of cosmetic features is enough to warrant classification as an assault weapon. Semi-automatic firearms, when fired, automatically extract the spent cartridge casing and load the next cartridge into the chamber, ready to fire again. They do not fire automatically like a machine gun. Rather, only one round is fired with each trigger pull.[2]

In the former U.S. law, the legal term assault weapon included certain specific semi-automatic firearm models by name (e.g., Colt AR-15, TEC-9, non-select-fire AK-47s produced by three manufacturers, and Uzis) and other semi-automatic firearms because they possess a minimum set of cosmetic features from the following list of features:
A semi-automatic Yugoslavian M70AB2 rifle.
An Intratec TEC-DC9 with 32-round magazine; a semi-automatic pistol formerly classified as an Assault Weapon under Federal Law.

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally).

Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.

Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:

Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
Detachable magazine.
Congratulations on applying for your permit.
 
  #3  
Old 01-06-13, 04:43 PM
Group Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: NC, USA
Posts: 17,951
There was a big to do a week+ ago when a newspaper created a searchable list of gun owners in a county. Many were active and retired police & corrections officers. Needless to say the Sheriff was politically discrete on national TV in expressing poor judgement of this.

---

Unfortunately because of the Assault Weapons Ban precedent has been set. It is easy for politicians to show they are doing something by going down a road that has been previously paved... even if the road leads nowhere. I have never seen any study or data that showed the AWB lowered gun violence. The main outcome I saw from it was the proliferation of smaller more concealable handguns.

---

If you really want a headache or are having trouble falling asleep some night truly dig into the AWB and understand what is defined as a assault weapon. It's a Swiss cheese of legislation that seems to sometimes contradict itself.
 
  #4  
Old 01-06-13, 06:04 PM
chandler's Avatar
Banned. Rule And/Or Policy Violation
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 39,968
Look at a Ruger Mini-14 and an AR-15 side by side. They are basically the same gun with the same operation. One just looks like a booger.

Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people including children. He didn't use guns. You can still buy fertilizer, diesel fuel and rent box trucks. Guns aren't the problem.
 
  #5  
Old 01-06-13, 06:11 PM
Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 4,941
All this stuff they are talking about passing is just a bunch of pacifiers fore everyone. It won't make meaningful change. The AWB makes the least bit of sense. Nevermind that it bans weapons based on looks. The vast majority of gun deaths are form hand guns. So banning assault weapons don't even stand a chance of reducing deaths. The nut in Sandy Hook had two hand guns with him. So the AWB wouldn't even have made a difference in that case.

This is what makes the tragedy worse. Some set of laws will get passed that everyone knows won't help prevent another tragedy and all will be forgotten. All to score political points.
 
  #6  
Old 01-07-13, 03:06 AM
Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 2,446
I personally think clip size matters as at least it will slow down a lunatic with a gun if he has to reload. I also think that gun sales for guns with clips should be limited to one clip and again it goes to safety. Does it make it any less tragic if only ten children dies versus twenty no of course not children are the future of the human race but I say lets have common sense laws that protect gun owners rights while also thinking of the potential destruction that even one hand gun can do. A hunter certainly doesn't need more than two or maybe even three bullets to kill a deer and he will still have plenty of bullets left over in a clip of ten.
I certainly don't agree with a list of gun owners and if you are a gun owner the crooks probably already know you own a gun, they don't need a list which I agree would make it easier for them. I take for example a nearby neighbor who I believe has retired from the police department in Washington D.C. probably in part because they like their officers to live in D.C. which I think is nutty but that is something for another debate. I am not sure how the crooks knew it but they knew he had guns in his house and went almost immediately to where they were secured in his house. They stole several hand guns that he had and didn't take much else. I think one or two of the guns were finally returned to him but others are still missing. Luckily the neighbor was out of town as he has a home in another state he says he is moving too eventually and they were there at the time. I never heard any break in though as the crooks were very quiet they got in took what they wanted and were gone in no time.
Another thing they need tighter control of too is the gun sellers themselves. I take for example a gun shop we had not too far away from us that was broken into several times once in the front and the other time through a steel door. I can't say exactly for sure what happened and will not accuse the gun shop owner of anything but I know for a fact that the police later on raided the gun shop owners house to search it I presume for stolen guns. I saw the warrant being executed on television and heard that these were the people who had owned the gun shop. The gun shop is now long gone and in its place sits another business totally unrelated. His business too had a great deal of police officers going there for service to their guns and I imagine ammunition. Not much longer after the break ins the owners of the shopping center had put security cameras up so maybe someone was allegedly caught on tape during one of the break ins.
 
  #7  
Old 01-07-13, 03:26 AM
chandler's Avatar
Banned. Rule And/Or Policy Violation
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 39,968
Richard, take your argument on magazine capacity one step further. The Second Amendment wasn't put in place to keep innovation from taking place. They were still shooting muzzle loading muskets back when it was written. Tragic as it is, those children didn't have to die if existing laws concerning the shooter's ability to obtain, possess and legally carry the gun were enforced. The gun was just a convenient tool for him. It could have been a hammer.

The Second Amendment was put in place basically to protect the populace from invasion from any source whether it be foreign, domestic or government. Think about it. Government forces have magazines with much higher capacity than 10. Do you want to restrict your ability to defend yourself by placing regulations nationwide against leveling the playing field. I don't fear the common criminal. I can handle him. I fear the government.

Both Criminals and Dictators prefer an unarmed poplulace. While an armed society is a polite society.
 
  #8  
Old 01-07-13, 01:26 PM
Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 4,941
You don't need large capacity magazines to fight in a war. The M1 only had 6 round clips and managed to dispatch many enemy fighters.

The magazine capacity argument is poor and will make little difference. They take seconds to change. It will only make a difference if detachable magazines go by the wayside.
 
  #9  
Old 01-07-13, 01:40 PM
Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 635
I've never owned a gun, likely never will. Very few in Canada do. I don't see why anyone does need a handgun, but that's just my opinion and my particular circumstances.

However, if I was in a war and the other guys had large capacity clips. I'd want 'em too.
 
  #10  
Old 01-07-13, 01:48 PM
Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 2,446
Point taken Larry and it is true the government has in its possession clips for guns that can hold more than ten bullets. That being said though if a person wanted to defend him or herself then they should be able to buy a gun and even another clip after one year. I am not against the right to bear arms and to protect your house and livelihood what I am against though is the need for so many guns or at least so many with clips in them to start an army with.


I doubt seriously that if we now suddenly had an invading force coming to our houses that we would have much of a chance to defend ourselves even if we had a clip of a thousand bullets. So I don't worry about the government coming to my house because if they did even if I had a gun I really couldn't do much with it, maybe hold them off for a few hours and then surrender. I myself am much more worried about a criminal breaking into my house in the middle of the night than the government or some outside invaders coming. I also agree that people who kill could kill with about anything take for instance the Oklahoma bombing years before 911 and one of the worst forms of domestic terrorism this nation has ever had.


So the crazies have their methods what I am saying let's make it a bit harder. The responsibility lies first and foremost with the gun owner and not with the manufacturer in this case as you have a choice to purchase that hand gun or that rifle as no one is forcing anyone. So whoever has guns should lock them up as best as they can until they are needed and if they carry a gun take a course in the proper use of a hand gun if they are new to guns. The second responsibility lies with the gun seller as he needs to make sure that the person who buys the gun is of sound mind and has no legal problem standing in his way such as a prior arrest for armed robbery. The third responsibility lies with the gun maker it is fine to have pride in your product but there is also responsibility is a 20 round clip necessary to the individual who finally gets the gun or should they have a smaller magazine? Those are the questions the manufacturer has to ask.


The last and final responsibility lies with the government and that is the way it should be as after all this is a government by the people and for the people not the other way around. I take one example and I think this has to do with a fairly recent Meet The Press show although I am not sure. Anyway Police chief Kathi Lanier of the Washington D.C. MPD happened to be watching one of those Sunday political shows and the reporter happened to have in his hands a gun clip out of a high capacity rifle. No rifle was present and I don't even think the clip had any bullets in it yet the police chief told the reporter after the show that he was in violation of the law.


Now how stupid can they get. I thought the clip was too big for a gun when I saw a clip from the show but it also was harmless without the gun to fire the clip. So there certainly needs to be a balance especially for new gun sales and much more control over the guns already out there with more control over the crazy people who are a danger to society. Trouble is who is the next person to go crazy with all of the pharmaceuticals that doctors keep pumping into people but that is also a different topic for another time.
 

Last edited by lawrosa; 01-07-13 at 03:14 PM.
  #11  
Old 01-07-13, 02:03 PM
chandler's Avatar
Banned. Rule And/Or Policy Violation
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 39,968
I don't intend to stand off the "government" by myself, of course. It will be the banding of the "militia" to protect our rights from a government gone wrong. Remember Schindler's List.......only the police and military had guns. Unarmed people are "subjects".

Don't take my ranting as if it came from a survivalist, please. "Survive" to what?? We just need to keep our wits about us regarding any of the Bill of Rights. No one faction should be able to just go in and gut parts and pieces of our Constitution so it fits a modern society. Our forefathers were too smart. Although the muskets of their day have turned into our AK47 Kalishnikov's, the premise of their astounding knowledge is unsurpassed.
 
  #12  
Old 01-07-13, 03:11 PM
Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Wet side of Washington state.
Posts: 18,399
Hedgeclippers, will you PLEASE learn to write in paragraphs with a double space between paragraphs. I generally think you have a lot to add to any conversation but the single paragraph makes it far too difficult to read.
 
  #13  
Old 01-07-13, 03:16 PM
lawrosa's Avatar
Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 17,607
write in paragraphs with a double space between paragraphs.
I believe, and I am not sure, but from my own tests you can speak text to your smart phone and it just blends the text together.

Not to get off subject. I did edit his post.

 

Last edited by lawrosa; 01-07-13 at 06:27 PM. Reason: spelling
  #14  
Old 01-07-13, 06:25 PM
Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 2,446
Well said Larry and I do agree with you and remember the movie although not as well as you do as I think I had heard about Schindlers list but never saw it I only heard a little bit about it. I do know that it was a true story about Germany during the war and that Schindler owned a factory where Jewish people were forced to work.

No I certainly don't want to see America going that far and especially the United States. If America was ever invaded though I probably still wouldn't want to use a gun I just don't like them. Maybe a crossbow just as good and silent to use and maybe even more powerful.

Sorry about the paragraphs I try to not have things so close but I usually do a quick reply and don't always have time to go advanced.

Getting back to the subject though I am one who would like to see the gun show loop hole closed and require at least several dealers who are licensed to be present so that gun checks could be made. This would make the sales of guns safer and people who have guns they want to sell could still make enough but would also know that their gun wouldn't be sold to a criminal or someone who is insane. It really wouldn't make the process any harder than privately selling a car which by the way has to go through motor vehicles or an agent licensed by them. This also would also protect everyone's rights.
 
  #15  
Old 01-07-13, 07:10 PM
Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: New England
Posts: 10,027
I read most of the above but apologize for not getting to it all. I hope I'm not repeating.

I'm not quite sure how to word this, but it points to the political nature of gun control. If the ideas they are coming up with, banning assault weapons or whatever, are GOOD ideas, then they should have been introduced long before Sandy Hook. A GOOD idea is good regardless of what has been happening. The fact that these ideas are being suggested after a tragedy tells us, they are not well thought out solutions that will look reasonable once the sorrow has passed. In other words, political mileage.

A proper look at those pushing for gun control uncovers the shameful nature of their efforts, they have waited for a tragedy to benefit THEIR political future. If they really had any ideas worth talking about, those bipartisan ideas should have been presented long ago. The truth is, the gun control crowd doesn't have a solution so they are trying to capitalize on emotion rather than finding a solution to our society having become desensitized to all forms of violence.

Guns are not the problem and those who want to ban them need to focus their efforts to understand what really is.

Bud
 
  #16  
Old 01-08-13, 03:20 AM
chandler's Avatar
Banned. Rule And/Or Policy Violation
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 39,968
Bingo, Bud....no more calls folks.....we have a winner here!!!!
 
  #17  
Old 01-08-13, 09:35 AM
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,188
Yesterday I read an article on the Fox News website about a woman (soemwhere in GA?) at home with her children when some punk tried to break in. She hid with her kids and when the guy found them she put 5 rounds into him. I wonder what would have happened to them had she been unarmed?

How come that sort of story never hits the "mainstream media"?
 
  #18  
Old 01-08-13, 09:38 AM
Forum Topic Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 44,020
How come that sort of story never hits the "mainstream media"?
Because there is no longer any unbiased news..... and those types of stories don't jive with their liberal agenda
 
  #19  
Old 01-08-13, 10:26 AM
Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: New England
Posts: 10,027
One of the NRA magazines used to run (I assume they still do) a section about armed citizens with stories like that.

I wonder how many tragedies large and small have been avoided because there were people who were able to defend themselves. I'm old and these gun control fanatics expect me to use my hands or my feet to avoid being mugged or worse. Our families, our homes, ourselves, and our country deserve protection, AND THEY want to take away our guns. Who's side are they on?

Bud
 
  #20  
Old 01-08-13, 01:58 PM
chandler's Avatar
Banned. Rule And/Or Policy Violation
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 39,968
Wayne, it was in Walton County, just east of Atlanta. She fired 6 times, missed once, and stood over him while he whimpered and told him if he moved, she would fire again. He was too stupid to count the shots, I guess. She and the kids ran to a neighbor's house.

NOW, since he lived through it, the ACLU will probably file suit on his behalf for some Constitutional failure on the part of the mother. I'm sure she didn't mean for him to live, but c'est la vie. Probably won't win any beauty contests as all 5 shots were to the face. Now that's gun control!!!!
 
  #21  
Old 01-08-13, 02:38 PM
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,188
I was going to comment that it was too bad that he survived but I figured that post would get deleted too.

I think her husband should retire her .38 in favor of something with a bit more punch and a lot more rounds. He also needs to teach her about center mass.
In any case, good for her.
 
  #22  
Old 01-08-13, 02:44 PM
chandler's Avatar
Banned. Rule And/Or Policy Violation
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 39,968
Yep, I'd say............Optional 17 round .40 Glock. Oh, that is too many rounds!!! What should we do? Promise to only load 10 rounds in it. That's it!!
 
  #23  
Old 01-09-13, 09:09 AM
Group Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: WI/MN
Posts: 18,716
There are two stories from the Armed Citizen section of NRA magazines I will never forget:
1 One was about a woman who finally got to her gun and killed the man who had held her hostage for several hours and raped her repeatedly during that time.
2 A a ten year old boy who took his younger sister and brother (who were in his care at the time due to the parents being out running errands) into the bedroom and locked the door when someone broke into the house. He grabbed the phone and dialed 911 and then the .357 his father had trained him to use. While still on the phone with the 911 operator, he shot and killed the intruder when he broke through the bedroom door.
 
  #24  
Old 01-09-13, 10:08 AM
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,188
The 911 tapes from the Georgia shooting are now on line. The husband is talking to 911 and his wife at the same time. The wife is hiding with the kids in hte attic. Husband says "he comes into the attic you shoot him, just like I taught you . . . " She did.

The dirtbag broke in through the front door, a locked bedroom door and a locked bathroom door before entering the attic. He has a long rap sheet including assault. The good news is, he may not make it.

For our Canadian friends - we have a lot more drtbags in the US than you have in Canada.
 
  #25  
Old 01-09-13, 10:10 AM
Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: New England
Posts: 10,027
Mitch,
The one I remember was the lady at home with 3 kids when three intruders busted in the front door. She came to the top of the stairs with an AR, chambered a round and the three vacated without further confrontation. Probably had to clean out their shorts.

I have personally had 2 occasions where we will never know if there was going to be a problem, but myself in one case and my nephew in the other were openly carrying (fishing and camping) and the questionable guys went away. I enjoy life and I don't worry about bears, coyotes, or bad guys and I know I will never have to hide in a corner or a closet.

Bud
 
  #26  
Old 01-09-13, 10:12 AM
Group Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: WI/MN
Posts: 18,716
The vast majority of gun owners have no desire to ever point their gun at someone, let alone discharge it. We just want that option available to us if the need arises.
 
  #27  
Old 01-09-13, 01:28 PM
Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 2,446
I personally am for the right to bear arms but as I said I think there needs to at least be someone at gun shows and preferably a licensed person who can run background checks before that person buys a gun from a private seller and the same goes for private sales in homes.

That being said though do you remember the man who had been assaulted several times on a New York city subway train? The man had had enough so he applied for and received a permit to carry a gun. He then carried said gun with him and went to the subway station. Apparently some punks who had assaulted him before were on the train and they thought let's have some fun let's beat him up again and rob him. So they got their knives out and balled their fists and were prepared to beat the poor man senseless. The man though as you know was prepared and got out his gun and I think warned them but they were too stupid to listen so he opened fire. Now I don't think taking the law into your own hands is always the best solution and as a matter of fact I believe it is best to let the police handle things except when your life is in imminent danger. Apparently a jury of his peers that was racially diverse and of differing opinions thought so too as of course the man was arrested and tried for multiple murders but acquitted of every charge.

Things though can go the other way even for police officers who are sworn to uphold the law and definitely allowed to carry a gun at all times. If people who own guns use their head then their shouldn't be a problem as most juries understand the circumstances even when deadly force becomes necessary.
 
  #28  
Old 01-09-13, 04:06 PM
Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: New England
Posts: 10,027
Hi hc,
Your story sounds like Bernhard Goetz Bernhard Goetz - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
aka the subway vigilante. If that is the story, his gun was unlicensed and that was ultimately his only conviction. But there was more to the incident as I remember, he not only defended himself, but continued firing AND that is where proper training should come in.

Although emotions are hard to predict, proper instructions on what NOT to do are just as important as how to use a gun.

Bud
 
  #29  
Old 01-09-13, 04:17 PM
Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 4,941
That's the guy. I've heard him on the radio in recent years and he doesn't seem to have all his screws tight.
 
  #30  
Old 01-09-13, 06:20 PM
Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 2,446
You guys are right that's the guy and now that you have refreshed my memory he was kind of nutty. That though is my whole point in what I have said there needs to be a balance and personally now that I have read a bit more I think they should have convicted him of attempted murder.

There was another case I am unclear about and that was the case of a man I think I had heard did have a permit to carry a gun. In this case though it was in Texas and this particular man had heard his neighbors house being broken into. He went out of his house with his gun and told the robber to freeze and when he didn't he then opened fire. As I remember the case I don't believe the robber was armed so even a police officer probably wouldn't have used his gun as it wouldn't have been a justified use of force. I do remember that this was during the summer so you could clearly see if the person was armed. Not sure though of this persons fate and whether he was convicted or not. I also agree with your statement about emotions Bud9051 and the instructions people should get when they buy a fire arm. Just as important as defensive driving courses to get a drivers license.
 
  #31  
Old 01-09-13, 06:36 PM
chandler's Avatar
Banned. Rule And/Or Policy Violation
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 39,968
Wayne: the latest news story has this for a finish line "Authorities believe Slater targeted a home in another local subdivision but left when confronted by the homeowner, Chapman said." So he goes to another house and tries his luck there.


You just can't legislate "stupid".


Mitch, the Armed Citizen had one not long ago where a guy broke into a home with only a teenage girl there. Too bad....she was the state skeet champion, or something like that. PULL!!!

 
  #32  
Old 01-10-13, 06:55 AM
Group Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: WI/MN
Posts: 18,716
My daughter is eight and not old enough to stay home by herself. We've already had the guns out to get her started as a safe and responsible user so that she will be completely prepared once she is old enough.
 
  #33  
Old 01-10-13, 08:23 AM
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,188
I'm sure everyone here has heard of the Petit family but in case you haven't . . .

Dr Petit, his wife and two daughters lived in an upscale CT neighborhood where violent crime was unheard of. One day two dirtbags changed all that. I won't go into details, but the husband was beaten and tied up while the wife and daughters were tortured, raped and murdered.

Here's a WIKI Link in case you aren't familiar with the murders.

I wonder if that would have happened had there been a gun in the house?
 
  #34  
Old 01-10-13, 10:15 AM
Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: New England
Posts: 10,027
There is another side of gun ownership that deals with the other 99.9% of the time. Remember when Jaws came out. After that movie, anyone who watched it was sure to be looking over their shoulder any time they went into the ocean. Well, today we watch the violence around the world, around our country, and in our own towns in real time. So, for one tenth of one percent of the time, probably less, we may need a gun. For the other 99.9% of the time we get to live without the fear of being the victim.

Gun ownership is about not being a victim. 911 doesn't give me peace of mind.

Bud
 
  #35  
Old 01-10-13, 01:18 PM
the_tow_guy's Avatar
Group Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: SW Fla USA
Posts: 11,575
I see there was another student-on-student shooting in California - shotgun. Hmmm.
 
  #36  
Old 01-10-13, 05:21 PM
Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 4,941
I think this is the same story you mentioned that came out of Texas. One neighbor saw some guys break into the house next door. He called 911 and reported it and stayed on the line. He told the operator he had a gun and was watching them. Can't recall the details of the call. The operated insisted he put the gun down and stay inside. Well, the cops took awhile to show up and the crooks ran away from the house next door. They happened to cross the property line of the armed neighbor. The armed neighbor shot them all in the back. No charges were filed. Under Texas law, it is perfectly legal to shoot anyone on your property that may be a threat to you or your property.

There are a lot of stories out there where someone has successfully protected themselves and their family with a firearm from grave harm. But there are just as many stories where things have gone terribly wrong.
 
  #37  
Old 01-11-13, 04:41 AM
the_tow_guy's Avatar
Group Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: SW Fla USA
Posts: 11,575
And then there's people who should have had to pass an IQ test before owning a gun. Story in this morning's news:

ST. PETERSBURG, Fla.: Police: St. Pete teen dies when gun discharges - Florida Wires - MiamiHerald.com
 
  #38  
Old 01-11-13, 01:54 PM
Justin Smith's Avatar
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Cressona, Pa, USA
Posts: 2,546
And then there's people who should have had to pass an IQ test before owning a gun. Story in this morning's news:
Let's just blame Darwin on that.
 
  #39  
Old 01-11-13, 02:06 PM
Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: New England
Posts: 10,027
I know this is drifting a bit, but we need to look for solutions as well as beating up this particular event.

Headline on Google news: "Girl raped, murdered in India" this isn't the one that has been around for awhile, this is a new one. Here we are, on the other side of the world and terrible headlines pop up in real time. Where is the article about someone saving a life? It's not the news they, and you know who they are, want to report, so all we get is a constant diet of everything bad and the worse it is, the better.

My point is, how about mandating fair and balanced reporting. I'm tired of news organizations MAKING the news to fit their needs. There's a lot that is good going on in this world and especially here at home, but does the good get reported, no and that is irresponsible.

With the explosion of real time world wide communications, the warped media can always find something bad, so what are we going to be reading, a diet of bad, bad, and more bad. If that is all a media organization can publish, shut them down, they are no longer fair and balanced.

Notice, nothing about gun control and there are many more elements contributing to problems like Sandy Hook that need to be addressed.

Bud
 
  #40  
Old 01-11-13, 02:23 PM
Forum Topic Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 44,020
how about mandating fair and balanced reporting. I'm tired of news organizations MAKING the news to fit their needs
I couldn't agree more

If that is all a media organization can publish, shut them down, they are no longer fair and balanced
I'm old enough to remember when the news reported all the news with no bias. Now it seems they all have an agenda they are trying to promote
 
Reply

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Display Modes