|just as deadly with any other weapon?||MJ|
Oct 15, 2002 12:28 AM
|What if he's got a pointed stick? nm||Eager Beagle|
Oct 15, 2002 12:41 AM
|you're right - just as deadly... nm||MJ|
Oct 15, 2002 4:43 AM
|Serial rock killer.||Sintesi|
Oct 15, 2002 6:11 AM
|Let's here it for rock control legislation. You know the one thing that might get tougher gun legislation passed is a kook sniper shooting people at random all around the nation's capital. Might get their attention. ; )
You know what sucks is there was a report last night where they found this guy in Philly an ex GI and trained marksman, he works as a travelling reapairman in the WDC area, owns a white Chevy Astro van, had a poster inside proclaiming "American Jihad," and even owned a sniper training manual to boot. I thought they had him and Blam! woman shot dead in parking lot 2 hours later. There's an ocean of kooks and nuts in this country.
|Serial rock killer.||MJ|
Oct 15, 2002 7:28 AM
|and I'm so glad they're armed...|
|If DC didn't have the worst gun laws in the country...||Matno|
Oct 15, 2002 7:34 AM
|maybe somebody would be able to shoot this guy. Of course, so far he's done a pretty good job of not being seen. It would still make me feel a lot better to know that most of the law abiding citizens in the area carried a gun. In times like this, it's a civic duty...|
|I have kind of a different take on that.||Spoke Wrench|
Oct 15, 2002 8:11 AM
|I think we're going to have another concealed carry referendum in Missouri this year. I honestly don't think it matters very much. I think that it's kind of like the speed limit signs.
As the gun nuts are quick to say, all of the bad guys are already carrying guns. What they don't say but I know to be true is that all of the paranoids are also carrying guns in spite of the law. I have personal friends, who I believe to be good people, who frequently carry firearms because it makes them feel safer. It doesn't even make the newspaper anymore when somebody gets caught at the airport or courts building with a hand gun they forgot they had with them. Once you eliminate those two groups, a state like Missouri probably only has 15 or 20 additional people who would get gun permits. That's why I think the statistics don't change when a state passes a concealed carry law.
During the last cincealed carry referendum, the precinct by precinct results were interesting. The majority of people who live in areas with high violent crime feel safer with anti-gun laws and the people who live in low crime areas are more likely to feel they need a gun for protection.
|strap it on!||DougSloan|
Oct 15, 2002 10:49 AM
|Gun laws are very interesting. I used to live in Missouri, and checked the laws. While carrying concealed guns is prohibited most places, you can carry one in a holster just about anywhere! Here are some references to gun laws: http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws.asp?FormMode=Detail&R=MO
Concealed gun referenda likely boil down to whether you "like" guns or you don't, not the real issue of getting permits to carry concealed.
Oct 15, 2002 8:32 AM
|everyone should be given high powered weaponry - that naturally results in safer streets and lower crime - especially when there's a sniper about
did you actually think before you posted that? or was it a cut and paste job from the NRA website...
if there weren't any guns then nobody would have to defend themselves - that's not a way to live and 'pursue happiness' is it?
|It's been a while...||BikeViking|
Oct 15, 2002 12:26 PM
|How would you propose making this "firearm-free" environment exist?
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Your willingness to trample on the 2nd Amendment AND ignore the 4th Amendment is wrong. WHile these shootings are a horrible thing, one does not throw out the baby with the bathwater (undo rights guaranteed by the 2nd and the 4th). If those two amendments are that nutty, there is a mechanism to change them.
Not hearing a lot about that...
|It don't see any reference to guns in the 4th amendment.||czardonic|
Oct 15, 2002 3:24 PM
|So at best, your argument is half-baked.|
|It don't see any reference to guns in the 4th amendment.||BikeViking|
Oct 16, 2002 5:13 AM
|To create this "firearm-free utopia", a law enforcement body would essentially have to go house-to-house and seize ALL firearms, thereby violating the 4th amendment. Now the State will have violated the 2nd AND the 4th Amendments implementing such a "firearm acquisition" program.
Anything short of such nasty tactics would not rid a society of firearms.
Not willing to agree to anything like that...
|That's a bit of a strecth.||czardonic|
Oct 16, 2002 10:12 AM
|By that logic, to prohibit anything is a violation of the 4th amendment.
However, if firearms were banned, those that failed to surrender them would be criminals. Those that had licensed firearms would already be on the hook to produce them. Otherwise, there would be probable cause to search their property. Those who did not have licences are already criminals in most cases. So it is true: "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns".
|That's a bit of a strecth.||BikeViking|
Oct 16, 2002 10:46 AM
|If firearms were outlawed, they won't be surrendered by those who believe in the 2nd Amendment. With so many unregistered firearms, the only real way to ban them are house to house searches to confiscate them, therein violating the 4th Amendment prohibiting unreasonable search and seizure.
I have a pistol and if such a law was enacted tomorrow, there would be no probable cause to search my domicile. For the police to find this weapon would entail a search of my domicile without probable cause.
|Law is not a matter of faith.||czardonic|
Oct 16, 2002 11:23 AM
|You can beleive what you like about the Bill of Rights. It is the interpretation of the Supreme Court that determines what is the law.
House to house searches would be no more necessary to ban guns than they were to ban drugs. Anytime a person such as yourself used a gun, probable cause would be established and your gun would be confiscated. And since you seem to think that gun owners are all such scofflaws, it would only be a matter of time before they all committed some other crime and established probable cause to search their home.
Oct 16, 2002 3:15 PM
|And then you would get innocent citizens going to jail for trying to defend themselves. This twisting of "perpetrator" and "victim" is occuring already in places like England. Even our own media often refers to a burglar who gets shot during an attempted burglary as "the victim." Very confused choice of words and a complete distortion of the facts, IMO. A person who voluntarily commits a violent crime is not a "victim" no matter what happens to them. I hope you (or any other people) don't think otherwise.|
|I haven't noticed that.||czardonic|
Oct 17, 2002 12:54 PM
|I don't think I have ever heard a burglar referred to as a victim unless there was a serious question of whether he was posing a reasonable threat to whoever did the shooting. (The case of the kid who was gunned down for trying to steal a bike from someones back yard comes to mind).
I think that the only justification for deadly force is a clear physical threat. If it is a crime for law enforcement to kill someone merely because they broke the law, so should it be for a civilian.
|Yes, but have you been paying attention?||Matno|
Oct 18, 2002 4:16 AM
|It's not exactly something that just jumps out at you unless you're looking for it. I've seen it plenty of times. Granted, partly because I often read publications that add "[sic]" every time it's written that way. (For example: "The victim [sic] was shot during an attempted burglary."
I totally agree with you about the justification of deadly force. I would almost never shoot someone who was running away from me. (I can't say never because there are situations in which I might, e.g. after a violent attack on my wife or children, but I would also do so knowing the consequences...)
|OK, so the question is judgement.||czardonic|
Oct 18, 2002 8:29 AM
|I think I would be much less uneasy about the proliferation of guns among civilians if they came with some kind of training. A gun is a powerful and deadly insturment. Should we be handing them out to people who's ability to weild them responsibly has not been determined? Even the 2nd Amendment specifies regulating gun owners.|
Oct 19, 2002 6:47 PM
|I think everyone would agree with that sentiment, including myself. Of course gun ownership should be accompanied by responsibility. Key word here is "should." Unfortunately, you can't regulate/infringe a right without violating that right. (Notice, the 2nd Amendment does not provide for regulating gun ownership, just a militia. I think it's safe to assume that "militia" means exactly what it did when the Amendment was ratified: every able-bodied male of age).
A good start would be to have parents who actually care enough about their kids to raise them responsibly. We've gone way too far in the direction of parents who are just too busy with other things to raise kids. Like gun ownership, there "should" be regulation of who can become a parent, but like they told us in law school, NOTHING has a fewer requirements than getting a marriage license. I can't imagine how anyone can actually justify putting ANYTHING higher on their list of priorities than their children, but obviously more and more people can. We've gone so long without requiring anyone to be personally responsible for their actions that a transition back would be very difficult, but not impossible. As a side benefit, stronger families would take care of most of society's other problems as well.
Oct 16, 2002 12:29 AM
|making an environment gun free is the impossible/difficult part
there's nothing in the 4th about guns
you're interpretation of the 2nd ignores the state militia requirement (you can't pick and choose which applies)
while you (and everyone else) keep worrying about Al Qaeda and Saddam and whoever the foreign, non-English speaking, non-white enemy is this week - the current gun laws encourage domestic terrorism as is now being visited upon people in the DC area
it seems somebody took their eye off the ball...
Oct 16, 2002 6:32 AM
|"you're interpretation of the 2nd ignores the state militia requirement (you can't pick and choose which applies)"
Courtesy of Dictionary.com
1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.
Therein lies the dispute...what does "militia" REALLY mean?
However, the following statement "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." is pretty clear in my opinion.
|We are the Militia!||Breakfast|
Oct 16, 2002 7:36 AM
|We have a right to self defense. We also have to accept the huge responsibility of using a weapon or inflicting injury or death in defending our life. It is proper that one should have the ability or means to kill or injure an attacker as well as have to answer for his deed before a panel of his peers when the circumstances require it.
The Second Amendment today protects the concept of "homeland defense rifles" and personal defense just as it did in 1787.
|Can you support that statement?||TJeanloz|
Oct 16, 2002 12:50 PM
|Do you know that the current events in D.C. are domestic terror? Could the sniper not be Al Qaeda?
I also believe that the 'sniper' probably is domestic- but I'm not going to be convinced of it until they actually convict somebody.
|no - just looking at police profiles described in the press||MJ|
Oct 17, 2002 12:22 AM
|and thinking what the odds would be of anything else
if it is a domestic terrorist - are you gonna 'come out' against the NRA and such groups?
anyways - regardless of who the sniper is the gun will have been purchased in the US due to the gun 'laws' such as they are
|Please explain to me. . .||czardonic|
Oct 15, 2002 10:04 AM
|how carrying a gun protects you from a bullet that hits you before you even hear the shot? The last thing a besieged and panicked community needs is bunch more nuts running around with guns itching to do their "civic duty".|
|Please explain to me. . .||Sintesi|
Oct 15, 2002 10:40 AM
|I think he means a witness can blow the sniper away. Obviously the person killed can't return gunfire.|
|Cold comfort. Especially with 9 dead and no witnesses. (nm)||czardonic|
Oct 15, 2002 10:57 AM
|The last appears to be different smuggy. nm||Sintesi|
Oct 15, 2002 11:21 AM
|You are so wrong. Writing as one who lives in DC & loves it||MB1|
Oct 15, 2002 10:11 AM
|here there are plenty of guns around. Notice the killer(s) have not shot anyone in SE DC (where all the guns are)and only one person in DC?
All of his first shootings were in Maryland and now he has been recently very active in Virginia which has a very liberal conceled gun laws-doesn't seem to have helped yet. Virginia also has and uses the death penalty (unlike MD and DC).
I suspect the killer does not intend to be taken alive.
|You are so right, but my point is...||Matno|
Oct 16, 2002 5:04 AM
|Of course in a situation like this where law enforcement has had no success tracking the killer after the fact the chances of a random armed citizen doing the same before hand are slim. But there is a chance. It happened in Texas a couple of years ago when a guy busted into a crowded restaurant armed to the teeth and shooting everyone he could. A little old lady with a handgun in her purse put a quick stop to it.
The problem with the anti-gun lobby's logic is that they use situations just like this to justify stricter gun laws. In what way could that possibly make a difference in a situation like this? John Hinckley used a validly licensed gun to shoot Pres. Reagan. That guy in Scotland who killed 16 kids last year used a legally registered gun in one of the strictest anti-gun countries in the world, yet people still scream that we need tougher gun laws. There are millions of attempted crimes thwarted by law-abiding citizens who carry guns. Few people ever consider their well-being. Of course there are plenty of guns around in DC. Criminals will ALWAYS have guns. There is absolutely no way to change that. (Here in NYC, when my dad tried to get a concealed carry permit, the secretary told him straight up that the only people who can get them are (1) friends of the police chief, and (2) the mafia (I'm not sure if those two groups are necessarily separate). I am lucky enough to live in a neighborhood with a lot of mafia members, so the danger of violent crime is relatively low. It still makes my blood boil that I am not allowed to even HAVE A GUN IN MY HOUSE here without first taking it to the police station while they add my name to the list. (Note to all those who think background checks are harmless: in spite of specific legislation to the contrary, the FBI has not deleted ANY record of those who have successfully passed a background check. That means they maintain illegal records of every firearm purchase from a dealer in the country. I'm not being paranoid, but that should be at least uncomfortable to anyone).
|You are so right, but my point is...||nn23|
Oct 21, 2002 3:36 PM
|"That means they maintain illegal records of every firearm purchase from a dealer in the country. I'm not being paranoid, but that should be at least uncomfortable to anyone"
The FBI knows you purchased a firearm - so why does that make you uncomfortable? The fact that some hot-headed people and criminals own guns is what makes me uncomfortable.
Hey you own a car, and the DMV knows about it. Just because you've never hit anyone does not mean you never will. You may - you may not. We don't know. So the govt. tracks all cars anyway. How is the gun issue any different?
I'm not saying that you are hot-headed or a criminal. Perfectly sane people own guns too, but who is to know.
|The lessons of history...||Matno|
Oct 22, 2002 7:39 PM
|No country in the history of this world has EVER registered personal firearms without eventually confiscating them. It is only a matter of time. I just hope that the fact that our country is more educated on principles of freedom than any other ever has been will somehow protect us from that final step.
BTW, taking guns away from criminals (not necessarily a bad thing) is not the same as taking cars away from bad drivers. When we have a problem with criminals and guns, the solution is to give guns to law abiding citizens. Should we give cars to good drivers to protect them against bad drivers?