Gun Legislation

[Mad American]

Of course you draw a line at abuse. However, spanking is not abuse yet let a teacher see a mark left from a good old fashioned trip to the woodshed, or bust one's butt in Walmart and see what happens. Society has taken the situation to the extreme the other way. I don't blame society for the gun thefts....I blame society for the LACK of individual responsibility.

[Leo Lyons]

Florida man Steven Egan mistakes girlfriend for hog, shoots her

It doesn't say whether she was wearing orange, but it sounds like he shot at the noise not something he could see, anyhow. Opps.
Or someone is dressing hogs in orange safety vests. This is Florida we're talking about.

Hmmm...girlfriend---hog----orange vest....
I'm not going to touch this one any further.....of course we're talking about Stinger's home turf; thanks for pointing that out rstrong.

[Leo Lyons]

Meanwhile, the beat goes on....

[Mad American]

Go fuck yourself vrede. I'm done with your childish trolling. You are truly incapable of debate without your usual childish taunts you've got nothing and you are in fact nothing.

[Mad American]

(running away, with childish vulgarity)

Point proven....Thanks

[O Really]

Of course you draw a line at abuse. However, spanking is not abuse yet let a teacher see a mark left from a good old fashioned trip to the woodshed, or bust one's butt in Walmart and see what happens. Society has taken the situation to the extreme the other way. I don't blame society for the gun thefts....I blame society for the LACK of individual responsibility.

Abuse is a matter of definition. Parents get a lot of slack in their rope compared to what would be considered abuse if they were hitting a stranger. They don't need any more slack in that rope.

[Mad American]

Of course you draw a line at abuse. However, spanking is not abuse yet let a teacher see a mark left from a good old fashioned trip to the woodshed, or bust one's butt in Walmart and see what happens. Society has taken the situation to the extreme the other way. I don't blame society for the gun thefts....I blame society for the LACK of individual responsibility.

Abuse is a matter of definition. Parents get a lot of slack in their rope compared to what would be considered abuse if they were hitting a stranger. They don't need any more slack in that rope.

Well call me old fashioned or a product of being raised in the Appalachian mountains, but I'd bet that 90% of the adults here were taken "to the woodshed" a few times in their childhood's..AND..they are no worse off and maybe a bit better for it. I was raised to respect adults and fear the hickory. My friend's parents had just as much right to tan my hide if need be, and it was reciprocal to my parents with my friends. We had gun racks in our trucks WITH the guns on school grounds...heck I carried a rifle and a shotgun down the school halls more times than one. We knew that the principal had a big paddle and could lift an offensive lineman's feet off the ground with it. We respected him and our teachers and we didn't have "mass shootings". Somewhere along the line a wheel ran off and everything changed...for the worse. What do you think it was?

[Banni]

Of course you draw a line at abuse. However, spanking is not abuse yet let a teacher see a mark left from a good old fashioned trip to the woodshed, or bust one's butt in Walmart and see what happens. Society has taken the situation to the extreme the other way. I don't blame society for the gun thefts....I blame society for the LACK of individual responsibility.

Abuse is a matter of definition. Parents get a lot of slack in their rope compared to what would be considered abuse if they were hitting a stranger. They don't need any more slack in that rope.

Well call me old fashioned or a product of being raised in the Appalachian mountains, but I'd bet that 90% of the adults here were taken "to the woodshed" a few times in their childhood's..AND..they are no worse off and maybe a bit better for it. I was raised to respect adults and fear the hickory. My friend's parents had just as much right to tan my hide if need be, and it was reciprocal to my parents with my friends. We had gun racks in our trucks WITH the guns on school grounds...heck I carried a rifle and a shotgun down the school halls more times than one. We knew that the principal had a big paddle and could lift an offensive lineman's feet off the ground with it. We respected him and our teachers and we didn't have "mass shootings". Somewhere along the line a wheel ran off and everything changed...for the worse. What do you think it was?

24 Hour far reaching news and increased population. I seriously doubt the percent of incidents have increased, but you claimed it so providing the evidence is on you.

[O Really]

Somewhere along the line a wheel ran off and everything changed...for the worse. What do you think it was?

I wouldn't agree that everything changed for the worse, but if I accepted that for sake of discussion, the answer would be pages long,with many factors interrelating with each other. It's not simple.

[Banni]

Yes, the wild west was nothing but daisies and pink hearts, everyone was armed, there was no crime, and no one got killed. What changed?


:-)

[O Really]

It's nice that Mad's school had no shootings, but they are hardly a recent phenomenon after something went off track... "The earliest known United States shooting to happen on school property was the Pontiac's Rebellion school massacre on July 26, 1764, where four Lenape American Indians entered the schoolhouse near present-day Greencastle, Pennsylvania, shot and killed schoolmaster Enoch Brown, and killed nine or ten children (reports vary). Only three children survived."

Here's the whole list... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sc ... ted_States

[O Really]

In the Senate discussion about gun legislation, Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, the ranking member on the subcommittee, wanted to increase penalties on criminals, but “At the same time,” he said, “we should continue to respect and protect the constitutional rights of law abiding citizens.”

Brings up an interesting point. A large - very large - number of people who shoot other people are doing so for the first time. That is, they were "law abiding citizens" until the moment they pulled the trigger. The term "law abiding citizen" is simply a feel-good term used to generate opposition to any attempt to prevent illegal use of firearms.

[Mad American]

Disagree. The term "law abiding citizen" is one that is used to describe millions of American gun owners who have not broken, and have no intention of ever breaking the law. However, you bring up a good point....why does the gun control group want to restrict the constitutional rights of citizens who have never broken the law, in an effort to stop those who have and do break the law? If the true reason is to stop criminal activity then would it not be more prudent to focus on the criminal?

[rstrong]

A large - very large - number of people who shoot other people are doing so for the first time. That is, they were "law abiding citizens" until the moment they pulled the trigger.

If the true reason is to stop criminal activity then would it not be more prudent to focus on the criminal?

In what way would you "focus on them", considering that they're not criminals until they pull the trigger?

[Mad American]

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.

Seems pretty straight forward to me.

[Mad American]

A large - very large - number of people who shoot other people are doing so for the first time. That is, they were "law abiding citizens" until the moment they pulled the trigger.

If the true reason is to stop criminal activity then would it not be more prudent to focus on the criminal?

In what way would you "focus on them", considering that they're not criminals until they pull the trigger?

So the shooter that killed the firefighters in New York was not a criminal until he shot them? How about the recidivistic people who are let out only to committ another crime and return to jail. The process has to start somehwere. So, again would it not be more prudent to focus on the CRIMINALS and not the constitutional rights of law abiding citizens.

[rstrong]

A large - very large - number of people who shoot other people are doing so for the first time. That is, they were "law abiding citizens" until the moment they pulled the trigger.

If the true reason is to stop criminal activity then would it not be more prudent to focus on the criminal?

In what way would you "focus on them", considering that they're not criminals until they pull the trigger?

So the shooter that killed the firefighters in New York was not a criminal until he shot them?

You're evading the question. A great many shootings - including mass shootings - are done by up-until-that-second law abiding citizens. How do you "focus on them" beforehand?

Even the shooter that killed the firefighters in New York had done his time for his previous crime, and had been a law abiding citizen for a long time.

[Mad American]

[You're evading the question. A great many shootings - including mass shootings - are done by up-until-that-second law abiding citizens. How do you "focus on them" beforehand?

Even the shooter that killed the firefighters in New York had done his time for his previous crime, and had been a law abiding citizen for a long time.

I'm not evading I'm saying focus on the known criminals FIRST. Lets deal with that issue before moving on to limiting the rights of law abiding citizens.

No, the New York shooter was not law abiding......he was a convicted felon in possession of a firearm. That is illegal and a prime example of a place to BEGIN working. Lets get the guns out of the hands of convicted felons who are not supposed to have them.

[O Really]

C'mon, Mad - get off that "Constitutional rights of law abiding citizens" meme. Nobody is buying it except the NRA who's using it for a rally yell. Here's why: (1) The Supreme Court upheld the right of individuals to own guns - separate from whatever anybody thought a "militia" involved. Your side won. (2) The Supreme Court also held that gun rights are not absolute, and that restrictions (unspecified) could Constitutionally be placed on those rights. So the argument is over what if any weapons or equipment might join sawed off shotguns and full autos (and others) on the list of illegal weapons. Not that it is ever going to happen, but given the Supreme Court decision, in theory, all weapons other than single shot rifles and .22 pistols could be made illegal. (3) The Supreme Court has held that it is not unconstitutional to restrict places where guns are legal. Not that it is ever going to happen, but in theory, practically every public area in the country could have gun possession restrictions. I'm not saying there aren't some people who would love to collect all the guns in the US and melt them into plowshares - there undoubtedly are. But those people are idiots and they're not the ones in position to get any legislation passed. Bottom line: restriction of types of firearms and/or restrictions on places where firearms may be legally carried is not - emphasis not - unconstitutional.

As to focusing on criminals - I'm all for that. I've suggested putting more teeth in the existing laws about illegal use/possession of guns. Take away all assets, in addition to whatever other penalty there might be. Castrate them if you like. Increase penalties for illegal possession and use. But that still doesn't address the fact that a very large percentage of shootings in the US are by people who were not previously criminals.

[O Really]

Another demonstration of how to remove a gun from "cold dead fingers" - although the fingers might not be that cold. Good work, guys! http://news.msn.com/us/ex-cop-exchanges ... uthorities