Student shot at Tacoma, Wash., school

[Fandango 1,439]

I think he was saying that if a gun scared off the intruder, it's not really correlated at the police station as a 'successful gun ownership story'

[Thingee 0]

From a disgust with the media(both liberal and conservative) standpoint: If it bleeds, it leads.

Now for my .02...In general when people start quoting statistics they're quoting stats from a source they tend to agree with. I could quote them stating how burglars were shot, or I could quote them stating how many family members were unintentionally shot. That's just my opinion on stats..they're awfully easy to manipulate.

My opinion on guns: It's not the fact that people have guns that disturbs me. I live in a fairly small rural community where hunting is a big hobby, guns in this country are a fact of life, they aren't going to go away. I don't own a gun, I won't have a gun in my home. What disturbs me is the ease with which Joe Schmoe down the block can get a firearm. Does he have the right to have a gun? Yes. It was written into the constitution...I can't change that. Should he have to somehow prove he's a reasonably functioning adult with more than 3 marbles rolling around upstairs? Yes, I think so. I don't think some sort of exam combined with a criminal history/mental health check would be that out of line. Yes, it would increase the wait time, but why in heavens name would anyone need a gun NOW? Meaning as soon as possible.

No doubt very few are going to like my ideas, but I've found in the best compromises no one gets exactly what they want.

[Ban Hammer 13,283]

From a disgust with the media(both liberal and conservative) standpoint: If it bleeds, it leads.

Now for my .02...In general when people start quoting statistics they're quoting stats from a source they tend to agree with. I could quote them stating how burglars were shot, or I could quote them stating how many family members were unintentionally shot. That's just my opinion on stats..they're awfully easy to manipulate.

My opinion on guns: It's not the fact that people have guns that disturbs me. I live in a fairly small rural community where hunting is a big hobby, guns in this country are a fact of life, they aren't going to go away. I don't own a gun, I won't have a gun in my home. What disturbs me is the ease with which Joe Schmoe down the block can get a firearm. Does he have the right to have a gun? Yes. It was written into the constitution...I can't change that. Should he have to somehow prove he's a reasonably functioning adult with more than 3 marbles rolling around upstairs? Yes, I think so. I don't think some sort of exam combined with a criminal history/mental health check would be that out of line. Yes, it would increase the wait time, but why in heavens name would anyone need a gun NOW? Meaning as soon as possible.

No doubt very few are going to like my ideas, but I've found in the best compromises no one gets exactly what they want.

already happens in regards to a criminal history check.

I think he was saying that if a gun scared off the intruder, it's not really correlated at the police station as a 'successful gun ownership story'

you can only read about that if you get the nra monthly magazine. usually an entire page in there about such.

[garya505 2]

I think he was saying that if a gun scared off the intruder, it's not really correlated at the police station as a 'successful gun ownership story'

Exactly.

[Ban Hammer 13,283]

I think he was saying that if a gun scared off the intruder, it's not really correlated at the police station as a 'successful gun ownership story'

Exactly.

here's what some people want in the usa. people who use guns legally to be in jail:

Obey a bad gun law... and get killed for it!

May 28, 2003 -- Two Harlem bodega clerks stood in two separate stores, both staring across the counter at armed robbers. One clerk used an unlicensed gun to kill his assailant and is now facing charges. The other didn't - and he's dead. According to José Fernandez, head of a 7,000-member association of grocery owners, thousands of bodega employees in the city's high-crime areas are faced with this terrible choice.

"We have to choose between going to jail for having an illegal weapon or protecting our lives," said Fernandez. Gun control makes it impossible for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves against violent criminals who ignore gun laws just as easily as they ignore laws against murder, rape and robbery.

These comments were made shortly after Mohamed Dramy's bodega store was robbed by violent criminals. The 40-year old Dramy had just returned from his wedding in his native country of Gambia. Unarmed and defenseless in compliance with New York law, Dramy could only stand helpless as he was shot in the chest and killed.

José Acosta, 69, chose a different option. With his life on the line, Acosta drew a small handgun and fatally wounded one of three masked holdup men.

"Acosta is facing charges for saving his own life, while someone who complied with the law is dead and leaves a family crying," said Fernandez, President of the Washington Heights-based Bodega Association of the United States. "We have to choose between saving ourselves or going to jail." While is a miserable pair of options, that is precisely the predicament that gun control legislation creates.

The dead criminal was identified as Luquarn Washington, a wanted army deserter. In classic denial of responsibility for violent criminal action, Washington's father was quoted as saying "He was a victim of this environment. He was in the wrong place at the wrong time." No, sir, "innocent bystanders" are in the wrong place at the wrong time. The victims of criminal attack are in the wrong place at the wrong time. When you don a mask and enter a store to rob it by force you are committing a crime. Luquarn Washington paid the price for making the decision to prey on another human being.

For millions of Americans, the fallacy of gun control is obvious. Gun-control laws can only disarm honest citizens. A gun ban didn't deter Luquarn Washington's gang of thugs from getting guns and using them in violent criminal attacks. Violent criminals remain just as dangerous and, in areas where gun control is in effect, criminals know that their prey has been left defenseless. Gun control increases the probability of violent crime and decreases the victim's chances of survival for citizens who obey the law.

link

[garya505 2]

From a disgust with the media(both liberal and conservative) standpoint: If it bleeds, it leads.

Now for my .02...In general when people start quoting statistics they're quoting stats from a source they tend to agree with. I could quote them stating how burglars were shot, or I could quote them stating how many family members were unintentionally shot. That's just my opinion on stats..they're awfully easy to manipulate.

My opinion on guns: It's not the fact that people have guns that disturbs me. I live in a fairly small rural community where hunting is a big hobby, guns in this country are a fact of life, they aren't going to go away. I don't own a gun, I won't have a gun in my home. What disturbs me is the ease with which Joe Schmoe down the block can get a firearm. Does he have the right to have a gun? Yes. It was written into the constitution...I can't change that. Should he have to somehow prove he's a reasonably functioning adult with more than 3 marbles rolling around upstairs? Yes, I think so. I don't think some sort of exam combined with a criminal history/mental health check would be that out of line. Yes, it would increase the wait time, but why in heavens name would anyone need a gun NOW? Meaning as soon as possible.

No doubt very few are going to like my ideas, but I've found in the best compromises no one gets exactly what they want.

You know, a lot of gun owners would agree with reasonable regulations if we didn't know the real agenda of the people behind such regulation was a total ban individual gun ownership. Like I said, give them an inch and they'll take a mile.

[garya505 2]

I think he was saying that if a gun scared off the intruder, it's not really correlated at the police station as a 'successful gun ownership story'

Exactly.

here's what some people want in the usa. people who use guns legally to be in jail:

Obey a bad gun law... and get killed for it!

May 28, 2003 -- Two Harlem bodega clerks stood in two separate stores, both staring across the counter at armed robbers. One clerk used an unlicensed gun to kill his assailant and is now facing charges. The other didn't - and he's dead. According to José Fernandez, head of a 7,000-member association of grocery owners, thousands of bodega employees in the city's high-crime areas are faced with this terrible choice.

"We have to choose between going to jail for having an illegal weapon or protecting our lives," said Fernandez. Gun control makes it impossible for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves against violent criminals who ignore gun laws just as easily as they ignore laws against murder, rape and robbery.

These comments were made shortly after Mohamed Dramy's bodega store was robbed by violent criminals. The 40-year old Dramy had just returned from his wedding in his native country of Gambia. Unarmed and defenseless in compliance with New York law, Dramy could only stand helpless as he was shot in the chest and killed.

José Acosta, 69, chose a different option. With his life on the line, Acosta drew a small handgun and fatally wounded one of three masked holdup men.

"Acosta is facing charges for saving his own life, while someone who complied with the law is dead and leaves a family crying," said Fernandez, President of the Washington Heights-based Bodega Association of the United States. "We have to choose between saving ourselves or going to jail." While is a miserable pair of options, that is precisely the predicament that gun control legislation creates.

The dead criminal was identified as Luquarn Washington, a wanted army deserter. In classic denial of responsibility for violent criminal action, Washington's father was quoted as saying "He was a victim of this environment. He was in the wrong place at the wrong time." No, sir, "innocent bystanders" are in the wrong place at the wrong time. The victims of criminal attack are in the wrong place at the wrong time. When you don a mask and enter a store to rob it by force you are committing a crime. Luquarn Washington paid the price for making the decision to prey on another human being.

For millions of Americans, the fallacy of gun control is obvious. Gun-control laws can only disarm honest citizens. A gun ban didn't deter Luquarn Washington's gang of thugs from getting guns and using them in violent criminal attacks. Violent criminals remain just as dangerous and, in areas where gun control is in effect, criminals know that their prey has been left defenseless. Gun control increases the probability of violent crime and decreases the victim's chances of survival for citizens who obey the law.

link

Logic, reason, and truth.

[Thingee 0]

From a disgust with the media(both liberal and conservative) standpoint: If it bleeds, it leads.

Now for my .02...In general when people start quoting statistics they're quoting stats from a source they tend to agree with. I could quote them stating how burglars were shot, or I could quote them stating how many family members were unintentionally shot. That's just my opinion on stats..they're awfully easy to manipulate.

My opinion on guns: It's not the fact that people have guns that disturbs me. I live in a fairly small rural community where hunting is a big hobby, guns in this country are a fact of life, they aren't going to go away. I don't own a gun, I won't have a gun in my home. What disturbs me is the ease with which Joe Schmoe down the block can get a firearm. Does he have the right to have a gun? Yes. It was written into the constitution...I can't change that. Should he have to somehow prove he's a reasonably functioning adult with more than 3 marbles rolling around upstairs? Yes, I think so. I don't think some sort of exam combined with a criminal history/mental health check would be that out of line. Yes, it would increase the wait time, but why in heavens name would anyone need a gun NOW? Meaning as soon as possible.

No doubt very few are going to like my ideas, but I've found in the best compromises no one gets exactly what they want.

You know, a lot of gun owners would agree with reasonable regulations if we didn't know the real agenda of the people behind such regulation was a total ban individual gun ownership. Like I said, give them an inch and they'll take a mile.

But that isn't always what's behind it. It's certainly not my thinking behind it.

[Ban Hammer 13,283]

But that isn't always what's behind it. It's certainly not my thinking behind it.

did you read post 19 and the link?

[Thingee 0]

I did actually. I poked around the site a bit as well. It seemed to lean rather strongly to the right. That doesn't mean I'm discounting everything that the article says out of hand..merely recognizing which spin is being used.

[Ban Hammer 13,283]

I did actually. I poked around the site a bit as well. It seemed to lean rather strongly to the right. That doesn't mean I'm discounting everything that the article says out of hand..merely recognizing which spin is being used.

sounds like you read the article with your mind made up then.

[garya505 2]

I did actually. I poked around the site a bit as well. It seemed to lean rather strongly to the right. That doesn't mean I'm discounting everything that the article says out of hand..merely recognizing which spin is being used.

If you ignore the emotional arguments and dig around enough, you will find the truth.

[Thingee 0]

Which I do with everything I read or hear. I hear the news of the day from BBC(liberal spin) first. I then listen to a local station(conservative spin). Next comes the local paper(another conservative spin). Lastly comes the bounty of the internet...loads of different opinions on different matters.

See, if there was a totally unbiased news agency I would read it religiously. When I hear liberals moaning that all guns should be nearly impossible to get I cringe. When I hear conservatives shouting they should be able to buy what they want when they want I cringe. To my mind there are miles of middle ground between the 2 ways of thinking but no one will give an inch.

This is true of most of the more policitically charged issues at this point in time.

SO, what I've meant to say in this longish(for me) ramble is that I found the article posted interesting, and it raised good points, but was from a biased opinion.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I guess the large number of news stories in recent years involving shootings at U.S high schools tell us something. In fact I'd be surprised if someone were to suggest that kids being shot in schools is a non-story.

Never used to see this in Britain, except in the worst, most deprived inner city boroughs - and those incidents typically involved knives not guns. Dunblane was a landmark case in Britain and we haven't had a repeat since 1995.

The other issue of course is that the majority of violent crimes against the person do not take place in the home - and you'll find that home invasion ranks pretty low on the statistical scale there. Far more likely to be mugged in a car park or a public street - when you're most unlikely to be armed.

[garya505 2]

I guess the large number of news stories in recent years involving shootings at U.S high schools tell us something. In fact I'd be surprised if someone were to suggest that kids being shot in schools is a non-story.

Of course that's a story, but the many incidents of self-defense with firearms never get told, so all the public sees is the bad.

Never used to see this in Britain, except in the worst, most deprived inner city boroughs - and those incidents typically involved knives not guns. Dunblane was a landmark case in Britain and we haven't had a repeat since 1995.

Ah, but this is the US not the UK and there are many other differences as well.

The other issue of course is that the majority of violent crimes against the person do not take place in the home - and you'll find that home invasion ranks pretty low on the statistical scale there. Far more likely to be mugged in a car park or a public street - when you're most unlikely to be armed.

All the more reason to get a concealed carry permit if one is so inclined.

More and more states are adopting reasonable concealed carry laws. I don't have the stats handy, but so far it appears that areas with high numbers of law-abiding gun owners have lower crime rates. As they say, "an armed society is a polite society".