"Right to bear arms" should mean ...

by Simon 616 Replies latest members politics

  • besty
    besty

    TD - there are plenty of very good reasons why owning and carrying a gun makes a lot of sense - in the UK as well as the USA.

    We view firearm ownership as a privilege - you view it as a right. We have plenty of social and mental health issues to deal with - rarely do they end in massacres of the type that has become almost a monthly occurence in the US - where dozens of people can be slaughtered in a matter of minutes.

    Something in the USA is broken and eventually - when enough Joe Sixpacks and Hockey Moms want it - a solution will be imposed by regulation, and part of that will most likely include tighter controls on who has the right to own what.

    A price signal in the form of a Homicide and Massacre Tax on every firearm related transaction would be a start - research indicates a cost to society of $10m per homicide.

    Let the gun enthusiasts and gun industry start paying the fully loaded cost of their hobby back to the society that gives them their 2A right. As of today its an external cost which is someone elses problem.

  • TD
    TD
    Yeah, I don't buy the 'dangerous animals' argument either. Do people think a bear is going to break into their house to get them? That they are going to hunt them down as they drive to the mall? The argument is weak beyond belief.
    So this 'when did you last come face to face with a dangerous animal' is either bullshit or the same paranoid fear being manifest again.

    --Don't know what to say Simon. I don't usually do cut and pastes, but since I'm apparently a eunuch who's either spouting bullshit or delusional, I've pasted an excerpt from an article that appeared in August of last year on MSNBC below. Although it's specific to neighboring New Mexico, it describes some of the Arizona reservations to a tee:

    GALLUP, N.M. -- The 55-year-old man was found lying on the side of the road on the Navajo Nation, a pack of dogs mauling him relentlessly. Emergency workers chased them away, but the pack — their ribs sticking out — kept trying to circle back.

    It was not determined whether the dogs or a seizure felled Larry Armstrong as he went for a walk near his rural home last December. An autopsy report said he died from the bites, but investigators were unable to determine if he was even conscious when he was attacked. Regardless, the case vividly underscored the problems the Navajo Nation — and many other tribal lands — have with stray, feral or just neglected and loose dogs.

    On the vast Navajo Nation, wildlife and animal control manager Kevin Gleason estimates there are four to five dogs for each of the more than 89,000 households — or as many as 445,000 dogs, most of which roam unchecked, killing livestock and biting people with alarming regularity.

    "They kill everything," Gleason said in a recent interview. "Cats, dogs, cattle, sheep, horses. We've also had people severely injured by them. We've had people with horrendous bites. We just had a case ... where a man lost 37 sheep to a pack of dogs.

    "We have that going on all the time. Our officers respond to more than 25 bite cases a month, and 25 livestock damage cases a month."

    Attempts to diminish the problem with round-ups by animal control officers, weekly spay and neuter clinics in Gallup, and ongoing efforts by small group of volunteers to ship a few healthy puppies and dogs to shelters in Albuquerque and Colorado have had virtually no impact.

    "You look at the Sundance area where that gentleman was killed, we went in and removed 79 dogs after that and it looked like we never touched it," Gleason said....

    The article goes on to describe the some of the cultural, social and economic reasons behind the problem. Nobody seems to have a solution.

  • Talk22
    Talk22

    Do Civilians Armed With Guns Ever Capture, Kill, or Otherwise Stop Mass Shooters?

    Backers of laws that let pretty much all law-abiding carry concealed guns in public places often argue that these laws will sometimes enable people to stop mass shootings. Opponents occasionally ask: If that’s so, what examples can one give of civilians armed with guns stopping such shootings? Sometimes, I hear people asking if even one such example can be found, or saying that they haven’t heard even one such example.

    Naturally, such examples will be rare, partly because mass shootings are rare, partly because many mass shootings happen in supposedly “gun-free” zones (such as schools, universities, or private property posted with a no-guns sign) in which gun carrying isn’t allowed, and partly for other reasons. Moreover, at least some examples are contested, because it might be unclear — as you’ll see below — whether the shooter had been planning to kill more people when he was stopped. But here are instances that I have seen, not counting killings stopped by people who were off-duty police officers (or police officers from other jurisdictions) at the time of the shooting.

    1. In Pearl, Mississippi in 1997, 16-year-old Luke Woodham stabbed and bludgeoned to death his mother at home, then killed two students and injured seven at his high school. As he was leaving the school, he was stopped by Assistant Principal Joel Myrick, who had gone out to get a handgun from his car. I have seen sources that state that Woodham was on the way to Pearl Junior High School to continue shooting, though I couldn’t find any contemporaneous news articles that so state.

    2. In Edinboro, Pennsylvania in 1996, 14-year-old Andrew Wurst shot and killed a teacher at a school dance, and shot and injured several other students. He had just left the dance hall, carrying his gun — possibly to attack more people, though the stories that I’ve seen are unclear — when he was confronted by the dance hall owner James Strand, who lived next door and kept a shotgun at home. It’s not clear whether Wurst was planning to kill others, would have gotten into a gun battle with the police, or would have otherwise killed more people had Strand not stopped him.

    3. In Winnemucca, Nevada in 2008, Ernesto Villagomez killed two people and wounded two others in a bar filled with three hundred people. He was then shot and killed by a patron who was carrying a gun (and had a concealed carry license). It’s not clear whether Villagomez would have killed more people; the killings were apparently the result of a family feud, and I could see no information on whether Villagomez had more names on his list, nor could one tell whether he would have killed more people in trying to evade capture.

    4. In Colorado Springs in 2007, Matthew Murray killed four people at a church. He was then shot several times by Jeanne Assam, a church member, volunteer security guard, and former police officer (she had been dismissed by a police department 10 years before, and to my knowledge hadn’t worked as a police officer since). Murray, knocked down and badly wounded, killed himself; it is again not clear whether he would have killed more people had he not been wounded, but my guess is that he would have.

    So it appears that civilians armed with guns are sometimes willing to intervene to stop someone who had just committed a mass shooting in public. In what fraction of mass shootings would such interventions happen, if gun possession were allowed in the places where the shootings happen? We don’t know. In what fraction would interventions prevent more killings and injuries, as opposed to capturing or killing the murderer after he’s already done? We don’t know. In what fraction would interventions lead to more injuries to bystanders? Again, we don’t know. Finally, always keep in mind that mass shootings in public places should not be the main focus in the gun debate, whether for gun control or gun decontrol: They on average account for much less than 1% of all homicides in the U.S., and are unusually hard to stop through gun control laws (since the killer is bent on committing a publicly visible murder and is thus unlikely to be much deterred by gun control law, or by the prospect of encountering an armed bystander).

    Still, people have asked for examples of some shootings in which a civilian armed with a gun intervened and brought down the shooter — so here they are.

  • SixofNine
    SixofNine

    You do realize that, despite your constant refrain of the 100 round capacity magazine, those are not common at all, right?

    But extremely high capacity magazines where very common in Newton last week and almost undoubtably contributed to the high number of deaths.

    Extremely high capacity mags where also present in Aurora.

    In Texas, a legal shotgun can only hold three shells. THREE shells. Fucking TEXAS for chrisakes. We've managed to deal with the hardship for lo these many years.

    If TEXANS can live with protecting Ducks from overwhelming firepower - I think we and the rest of the nation can see our way clear to protect humans from overwhelming firepower.

    Clips for civilians should be limited to 5 rounds, tops. Cops can have more.

  • cedars
    cedars

    TD

    What, for example would you do in the following situation?

    You've gone fishing on the San Carlos Apache reservation with two friends. You're cooking a meal on a portable stove after a day of fishing. You notice a strange dog at the edge of the clearing. It's impossible to tell what breed he is, but he's very large. He won't respond to your voice even though you're very good with dogs. He just stares at you. Soon he's joined by another dog. --And another and another and another, until there are more than ten of them. Now they're growling, snarling and pacing back and forth. The leader charges you and the others follow.

    You scenarios are getting further and further away from what the gun control argument is all about, but I'll humour you anyway.

    I enjoy camping (not so much fishing), but I would never go out in the great outdoors in a place where there are likely to be animals who could kill or injure me without taking along someone who knows how to cope with such a scenario. If it were to happen in an America where there are tight gun laws, I might even consider paying a local to come along with me who knows how to handle a weapon and has sufficient accreditation to prove he isn't a psychopath. I don't view it as my personal responsibility to go wandering off into the woods in a hostile environment with the intent of blowing the head off of anything that looks at me in a disapproving way. Even more so (going back to your original argument) I don't view it as my personal responsibility to perform pest control operations on behalf of my community if a wild and dangerous animal were to wander into the vicinity of my house.

    Of course, some people WANT all of this to be their responsibility so that they get to fire off their massive weapon and thereby assuage any doubts about the size of their genitals. For people who are so minded there is no possibility of having a reasoned debate on the issue. Even if 20 schoolchildren get mown down in their own classroom due to a dearth of adequate gun legislation, they'll still want to have things their way.

    Cedars

  • EntirelyPossible
    EntirelyPossible

    But extremely high capacity magazines where very common in Newton last week and almost undoubtably contributed to the high number of deaths.

    Extremely high capacity mags where also present in Aurora.

    Perfect example of the communication problem. What do you mean, "etremely high capacity"? What kind of gun? "Almost undoubtedly" contributed to a high number of deaths? Is this speculation?

    Those sentences build a negative image while saying absolutely nothing.

  • SixofNine
    SixofNine

    Also Tuscon- again high capacity magazines used to brutal and lethal effect.

    If we're going to have guns in America, we have to SLOW them down in every sense. The purchase, the firing, the reloading.

  • SixofNine
    SixofNine

    What do you mean, "etremely high capacity"?

    You're well aware of the magazine capacity used in all the situations I mentioned.

    Stop being an asshole.

  • EntirelyPossible
    EntirelyPossible

    You're well aware of the magazine capacity used in all the situations I mentioned.

    Stop being an asshole.

    I am not aware of the magazine capacities use. So, in your quest to just call names and avoid a very simple answer to a very simple question, is it that you can't answer or just won't answer?

  • TD
    TD
    You scenarios are getting further and further away from what the gun control argument is all about, but I'll humour you anyway....

    And you are wrong. The gun control argument is ultimately about whether private citizens should be allowed to own guns or not. How could it get any more succint? If it is to be the latter, then legitimate uses of firearms are most certainly relavant to the discussion and your denial is simply an attempt to restrict the discussion into a more arguable form through exclusion.

    Like I said earlier on this thread, I'm not unreasonable and not unopen to compromise. Something has to be done. But I don't think what works in Europe will work in America and explaining why is most certainly relavant to the discussion.

    As to the rest of your comments, I'm glad to see that you don't feel calling for help is always a viable solution, but in place of that, you seem to be assuming a foreknowledge of the situation. I knew about feral dogs because I had seen them hundreds of times, but I had no clue that they could be that aggressive and dangerous. The incident was my real introduction to the problem. And that's not an uncommon attitude as Simon's incredulity on this thread shows. I think Simon would have been every bit as surprised as I was and I suspect you would have been too.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit