Just one of many examples,woman uses handgun to deter home intruder.

[billvon 2,989]

>You never hear of any lawful gun owners having shootouts on the street killing
> each other

I hear about them quite often. Here's two for the price of one:

===============
Road rage shootout leaves two drivers dead
6:43 PM, Sep 19, 2013

IONIA, Mich. (WZZM) -- Two drivers are dead after a road rage incident escalated into a shootout. The incident happened around 6:45 p.m. Wednesday on M-66 near Steele Street.

Witnesses tell WZZM 13 one driver was following another driver too closely. The first driver pulled into the Wonder Wand Car Wash parking lot and the other driver followed him into the lot.

Witnesses say the driver of the following car fired shots, and the first driver returned fire. Both drivers were shot and killed. Authorities say both men had licenses to carry concealed weapons.
===============

But perhaps since they were both "standing their ground" both killings were justified.

[toolbox 0]

>Of course you probably do not understand what I just said, because you are blind to any changes to any laws....ever, unless of course, they suit your flavor of koolaid'.


I actually believe in less laws,and would like to see many laws changed or repealed.
I feel that all drugs should be legalized.
I feel everyone should be treated equally in any publicly funded programs or organizations, in all states.
I feel businesses and private organizations should be able to refuse service or membership to anyone they want for any reason,and if you don't like it you can spend your money,or time elsewhere,vote with your feet.
I do not feel we should have more restrictive gun laws.
I believe in freedom and liberty,and smaller government,and less of big brothers intervention in our lives.
I don't try to get anyone to drink my koolaid,but rather feel you have the right to drink any koolaid you want.Just don't tell me what I should drink,eat,smoke,drive,who I should love,or what small arms I should, or should not have.

[rhaig 0]

tkhayes

How about some common sense reforms, like background checks, which are supported by the VAST majority of people in the country?.

And how can you legally buy a gun today without a background check? Through a face to face transaction, between two people who are not licensed firearms dealers. Some states require a background check for this, but it's nigh on impossible to enforce.

The "internet sales should require a background check" comes from ignorance. A licensed firearms dealer will only send an online purchased firearm to another licensed firearms dealer who will then (as required by current law) execute a background check before transferring (with the appropriate ATF paperwork) to the purchaser.

Quote

I mean after-all, this is a democracy right?

well... no. It's not. But that's not the discussion here.

Quote

I do not know the correct answer, but I do know that if we do nothing that we can expect nothing to change.

I've said it several times and heard it many times. Mental health and drug addiction are two of the problems behind violent crime.

Quote

Look at what pissed off mothers did for drunk driving.

I find it humorous that the founder of MADD broke from the organization when it became filled with abolitionists and she ended up working for the liquor lobby.

Quote

And if you think the country cannot make radical changes that affect everyone's freedoms at the stroke of a pen and in short order, take another look at the Patriot Act and the DHS.

Both of which were supported by (at the time) "the VAST majority of people in the country" (to use your phrasing). We're a democracy right?

Those two examples are perfect examples of how doing what the majority supports can be bad for civil liberties.

--
Rob

[Cajundude 0]

billvon

>You never hear of any lawful gun owners having shootouts on the street killing
> each other

I hear about them quite often. Here's two for the price of one:

===============
Road rage shootout leaves two drivers dead
6:43 PM, Sep 19, 2013

IONIA, Mich. (WZZM) -- Two drivers are dead after a road rage incident escalated into a shootout. The incident happened around 6:45 p.m. Wednesday on M-66 near Steele Street.

Witnesses tell WZZM 13 one driver was following another driver too closely. The first driver pulled into the Wonder Wand Car Wash parking lot and the other driver followed him into the lot.

Witnesses say the driver of the following car fired shots, and the first driver returned fire. Both drivers were shot and killed. Authorities say both men had licenses to carry concealed weapons.
===============

But perhaps since they were both "standing their ground" both killings were justified.

Yup, there are idiots everywhere and this was last year. I can name one that happened five minutes ago for a criminal pointing a gun.

To your point, one of them may have been standing their ground and this ended very unfortunately...

[billvon 2,989]

>Yup, there are idiots everywhere and this was last year. I can name one that
>happened five minutes ago for a criminal pointing a gun.

Agreed. And accidental shootings - often by those very same law abiding gun owners or their kids - are almost as frequent. It's a problem with no easy solution.

[Cajundude 0]

billvon

>Yup, there are idiots everywhere and this was last year. I can name one that
>happened five minutes ago for a criminal pointing a gun.

Agreed. And accidental shootings - often by those very same law abiding gun owners or their kids - are almost as frequent. It's a problem with no easy solution.

Yup. There should be stiffer penalties for people that have guns that should not. Licensed or not, if you don't secure your weapon and a kid gets it I do not have sympathy when it comes to your sentencing either.

However, the solution is not to take away the guns no mater if it is a BB gun or one of the "evil black" rifles which most if not all gun control advocates have no clue about.

[billvon 2,989]

> Licensed or not, if you don't secure your weapon and a kid gets it I do not have
> sympathy when it comes to your sentencing either.

Definitely agreed there. However, if a penalty of one of your children being killed is insufficient to get people to better secure their weapons, I don't think a longer jail sentence will do anything.

>However, the solution is not to take away the guns . . . .

Agreed. In the case above, I'd support a law that required people to better secure their weapons, but not one that simply confiscated them from any household with kids in it.

[kallend 2,026]

Cajundude

***>Yup, there are idiots everywhere and this was last year. I can name one that
>happened five minutes ago for a criminal pointing a gun.

Agreed. And accidental shootings - often by those very same law abiding gun owners or their kids - are almost as frequent. It's a problem with no easy solution.

Yup. There should be stiffer penalties for people that have guns that should not. Licensed or not, if you don't secure your weapon and a kid gets it I do not have sympathy when it comes to your sentencing either.

However, the solution is not to take away the guns no mater if it is a BB gun or one of the "evil black" rifles which most if not all gun control advocates have no clue about.

I don't recall anyone on this forum advocating for gun confiscation.

Quite a few people want better enforcement of existing laws, especially with respect to background checks, and for better education about the real risks involved in owning a gun (like gun owners are more likely to be shot than non-owners, the most likely person to kill you with a gun is NOT a stranger/robber/home invader, the gun most likely to kill you is a gun that you own, etc.).

Of course, none of the above FACTS would apply to the gungods who post here.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Glitch 0]

Hey Boomer... I just quoted the article. I don't agree with the quote. I personally feel that you have a 'duty' to protect your, or your families, well being from harm by whatever means necessary.

Me thinks we on the same page here.

Randomly f'n thingies up since before I was born...

[Boomerdog 0]

Yea...we agree.However, I'd like to know which states require someone to "flee and evade" inside the home. Looks like I have a little inquiry to conduct.

[champu 1]

billvon

> Licensed or not, if you don't secure your weapon and a kid gets it I do not have
> sympathy when it comes to your sentencing either.

Definitely agreed there. However, if a penalty of one of your children being killed is insufficient to get people to better secure their weapons, I don't think a longer jail sentence will do anything.

Why not? Look at seat belt laws.

[billvon 2,989]

>Why not? Look at seat belt laws.

If the laws on seat belts were only enforceable after you had a serious accident, they would be similarly useless.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

tkhayes

And we are advocating some changes to that right...yes.

As I said, the basis of my argument is that we CHANGE things when there is a problem, (except apparently in the case of guns). That only makes the country look ridiculous and stupid when it does not have the ability to solve a problem.

200 year old constitutional changes that need to be updated. The Constitution is far from perfect, has been amended (and unamended) 27 times,

Even your precious second amendment was just that, an amendment. An afterthought. 15 years after the new country was born. To take it as solemn gospel to never be tampered with or updated at least, especially 230+ years after the need for it, is plain silly. yes, i said silly.

Your grasp of American History is a little off. The BoR was not an "afterthought." The whole Constitution was adopted "15 years after the new country was born."
The BoR was part of it because the only way a strong central government was going to be approved was if there were guarantees for the rights of the citizens to be in place.

And the situation in the link in the OP seems to indicate that the "need" for the 2nd is still very real.

And you seem to be deliberately ignoring the basic fact that in the past 20 years there has been a huge increase in the number of guns in the hands of the American public, millions of carry permits issued, yet crime has gone down.

So from a "per gun" perspective, rates of accidents and homicides have dropped pretty dramatically. "More guns, less crime" has been noted by the pro-gun folks, but pretty much ignored by those who oppose them.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[kallend 2,026]

wolfriverjoe

***And we are advocating some changes to that right...yes.

As I said, the basis of my argument is that we CHANGE things when there is a problem, (except apparently in the case of guns). That only makes the country look ridiculous and stupid when it does not have the ability to solve a problem.

200 year old constitutional changes that need to be updated. The Constitution is far from perfect, has been amended (and unamended) 27 times,

Even your precious second amendment was just that, an amendment. An afterthought. 15 years after the new country was born. To take it as solemn gospel to never be tampered with or updated at least, especially 230+ years after the need for it, is plain silly. yes, i said silly.

Your grasp of American History is a little off. The BoR was not an "afterthought." The whole Constitution was adopted "15 years after the new country was born."
The BoR was part of it because the only way a strong central government was going to be approved was if there were guarantees for the rights of the citizens to be in place.

And the situation in the link in the OP seems to indicate that the "need" for the 2nd is still very real.

And you seem to be deliberately ignoring the basic fact that in the past 20 years there has been a huge increase in the number of guns in the hands of the American public, millions of carry permits issued, yet crime has gone down.

So from a "per gun" perspective, rates of accidents and homicides have dropped pretty dramatically. "More guns, less crime" has been noted by the pro-gun folks, but pretty much ignored by those who oppose them.

Of course, the author of "More Guns Less Crime" was shown to have fabricated data, lied, and masqueraded as a woman ("Mary Rosh") in order to give himself a good review.

Probably why honest analysts have pretty much ignored it.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

kallend

******And we are advocating some changes to that right...yes.

As I said, the basis of my argument is that we CHANGE things when there is a problem, (except apparently in the case of guns). That only makes the country look ridiculous and stupid when it does not have the ability to solve a problem.

200 year old constitutional changes that need to be updated. The Constitution is far from perfect, has been amended (and unamended) 27 times,

Even your precious second amendment was just that, an amendment. An afterthought. 15 years after the new country was born. To take it as solemn gospel to never be tampered with or updated at least, especially 230+ years after the need for it, is plain silly. yes, i said silly.

Your grasp of American History is a little off. The BoR was not an "afterthought." The whole Constitution was adopted "15 years after the new country was born."
The BoR was part of it because the only way a strong central government was going to be approved was if there were guarantees for the rights of the citizens to be in place.

And the situation in the link in the OP seems to indicate that the "need" for the 2nd is still very real.

And you seem to be deliberately ignoring the basic fact that in the past 20 years there has been a huge increase in the number of guns in the hands of the American public, millions of carry permits issued, yet crime has gone down.

So from a "per gun" perspective, rates of accidents and homicides have dropped pretty dramatically. "More guns, less crime" has been noted by the pro-gun folks, but pretty much ignored by those who oppose them.

Of course, the author of "More Guns Less Crime" was shown to have fabricated data, lied, and masqueraded as a woman ("Mary Rosh") in order to give himself a good review.

Probably why honest analysts have pretty much ignored it.

I wasn't referring to the actual study, Professor. I was talking about the fact that there have been millions of carry permits issued and tens of millions of guns sold in the past 20 years, yet crime has gone down.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[PiLFy 3]

wolfriverjoe

***And we are advocating some changes to that right...yes.

As I said, the basis of my argument is that we CHANGE things when there is a problem, (except apparently in the case of guns). That only makes the country look ridiculous and stupid when it does not have the ability to solve a problem.

200 year old constitutional changes that need to be updated. The Constitution is far from perfect, has been amended (and unamended) 27 times,

Even your precious second amendment was just that, an amendment. An afterthought. 15 years after the new country was born. To take it as solemn gospel to never be tampered with or updated at least, especially 230+ years after the need for it, is plain silly. yes, i said silly.

Your grasp of American History is a little off. The BoR was not an "afterthought." The whole Constitution was adopted "15 years after the new country was born."
The BoR was part of it because the only way a strong central government was going to be approved was if there were guarantees for the rights of the citizens to be in place.

And the situation in the link in the OP seems to indicate that the "need" for the 2nd is still very real.

And you seem to be deliberately ignoring the basic fact that in the past 20 years there has been a huge increase in the number of guns in the hands of the American public, millions of carry permits issued, yet crime has gone down.

So from a "per gun" perspective, rates of accidents and homicides have dropped pretty dramatically. "More guns, less crime" has been noted by the pro-gun folks, but pretty much ignored by those who oppose them.

Don't go confusing them w/facts, Joe. It really messes w/their heads ... Feels like Berkley.com in here