Ohio school gunman kills self, wounds 4

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well you need only look at countries which have gun control to see if that statement bears out. We have drink drivers sure, we don't have people driving Max-Max style through town centres.

Fair enough - I took you to mean that they were basically unsecured (i.e. not in locked boxes). Again you knew where they were - so if you were crazy and intent on causing mayhem you would have been able to lay hands on one without too much trouble?

and probably have stiffer penalties and enforcement than here. how easy it to get back into another car and drive drunk again. cars are so easy to find and are relatively inexpensive here.

... or the ice pick, knife, car keys, axe ... probably a few poisonous substances .... the typical home is full of deadly items

Sure - but in the very specific context of this thread - that of insane psychotic people going on a kill-crazy rampage, being empowered to carry out their schemes through the ease of availablity of firearms - comparisons with drink drivers who kill people not through intent, but through negligence aren't very apt.

Failing that - seeing as how cars are infinitely more dangerous than guns I propose that we we ship drunk drivers to Iraq where they can run down the Iraqi insurgents. Because its all the same... In the hands of a trained professional, or an dangerous incompetant guns and cars can be equally deadly.

I have to use ridiculous examples to show what a ridiculous, patently stupid argument that is.

i'll agree that in the hands of an incompetant both are equally deadly. if guns are outlawed, cars may well be the weapon of choice for premeditated murder though for the insane.

Well you need only look at countries which have gun control to see if that statement bears out. We have drink drivers sure, we don't have people driving Max-Max style through town centres.

So, to avoid further confusion, are you saying that your earlier implication that your father's guns were simply left lying around was shall we say, misleading?

as most of the guns were horizontal, lying around is perhaps not inaccurate

they were hidden all over the house, and certainly not in plain view.

Fair enough - I took you to mean that they were basically unsecured (i.e. not in locked boxes). Again you knew where they were - so if you were crazy and intent on causing mayhem you would have been able to lay hands on one without too much trouble?

they were not locked up, no. they were not loaded and ammo was separate. and no, i didn't know at the time they were hidden like that - i found that out about 5 years ago from my dad. the only ones i knew about were the rifles and shotguns hidden in the air conditioner vent, i'd put the number of that around 20. i'm fairly certain that my father kept a pistol or two or three in the bedroom but i never looked around in there for one nor had any desire to look for one.

the first time i fired a pistol, btw, was when i was 20 and in the military. i also never had a desire to shoot one when i was a kid and i didn't particularly see anything special about them.

But in theory - (if you were so inclined) you could have laid hands on one and loaded it from what was available in the house?

[natty bumppo 297]

There's middle ground here - although a gun's primary or sole purpose is to discharge a projectile which can penetrate through human flesh, it can prevent violence as a deterent. It's the same argument about nuclear weapons, but on a smaller scale - if one country knows that any military aggression it uses towards it's adversary will be matched by nuclear retaliation that would be devastating. That said, I don't think a gun is the best deterrent (best way for one to protect themselves) in most situations.

Example: A woman walking to and from her car to her place of employment. Although she is at risk of being attacked, she cannot carry a gun with her to work (for most jobs anyway). I'm in full support for people's right to carry a gun and protect themselves, but realistically, when you consider most of times one is at high risk of injury from another person, a gun would not or could not be used and I think that's a disservice to those seeking personal safety to say they should own a gun. That same woman would do herself more to carry pepper spray, a stun gun, or take self defense classes than to go out and buy a handgun for protection. Except in certain situations, most of the times when she will be at risk of harm, the gun will not be an available option for her.

I absolutely agree. .

Firearms are designed to kill other living creatures; however, like you said, if it's known (or potentially known) that someone else is "packing heat" then the chances of someone else pulling a gun are decreased. Unlike what some would have us believe, very few truly wish to get involved in a shootout. The outcome is rarely good and most parties understand this. Your nuclear weapons analogy is a good one and if you don't mind, I may "borrow" it for the future.

I think you're right, though, about where one may or may not carry a firearm. That's why I see no purpose to a CHL. Most places of business won't allow a gun on their property, so what's the point? Having the ability to carry a firearm with you won't do any good if you need to leave it in your car. The entire point of a CHL is immediate access to it in the event of an emergency. Perhaps something such as pepper spray, a taser, or martial arts training would be better for a woman (or even a man, since men are also targets of violence as well -- particularly gang-related or if the perpetrator is a psychopath) to have on her most of the time.

when a business denies someone (a person legally able to chl) the right to carry, the business also assumes responsibility for that persons safety ... this is a litigious society

oh ... and if the person is chl properly, how will the business know about the carry ?

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

they were not locked up, no. they were not loaded and ammo was separate. and no, i didn't know at the time they were hidden like that - i found that out about 5 years ago from my dad. the only ones i knew about were the rifles and shotguns hidden in the air conditioner vent, i'd put the number of that around 20. i'm fairly certain that my father kept a pistol or two or three in the bedroom but i never looked around in there for one nor had any desire to look for one.

the first time i fired a pistol, btw, was when i was 20 and in the military. i also never had a desire to shoot one when i was a kid and i didn't particularly see anything special about them.

But in theory - (if you were so inclined) you could have laid hands on one and loaded it from what was available in the house?

in theory, sure. and hand in hand with that theory, i've finally calculated when my dad woulda stopped beating my azz had i done so - it woulda been about 14 months ago.

[natty bumppo 297]

Sure - but in the very specific context of this thread - that of insane psychotic people going on a kill-crazy rampage, being empowered to carry out their schemes through the ease of availablity of firearms - comparisons with drink drivers who kill people not through intent, but through negligence aren't very apt.

i guess there wasn't a problem with anthrax being distributed through the postal system 6 years ago either .......

ever notice the warning is probably still posted in the mail room where you work ?

Edited October 12, 2007 by Natty Bumppo

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

when a business denies someone (a person legally able to chl) the right to carry, the business also assumes responsibility for that persons safety ... this is a litigious society

oh ... and if the person is chl properly, how will the business know about the carry ?

And I thought the reason that businesses prohibited firearms was because they would be held legally accountable in the event a person was injured as a result of them? Why else would it be specifically included as a stipulation in say... an employment contract?

Now I'm curious do you have an example of where someone has successfully sued someone because they were shot and/or threatened by a person while in a place of business that prohibits guns?

Is this a 'real' liability or merely wishful thinking on your part?

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

There's middle ground here - although a gun's primary or sole purpose is to discharge a projectile which can penetrate through human flesh, it can prevent violence as a deterent. It's the same argument about nuclear weapons, but on a smaller scale - if one country knows that any military aggression it uses towards it's adversary will be matched by nuclear retaliation that would be devastating. That said, I don't think a gun is the best deterrent (best way for one to protect themselves) in most situations.

Example: A woman walking to and from her car to her place of employment. Although she is at risk of being attacked, she cannot carry a gun with her to work (for most jobs anyway). I'm in full support for people's right to carry a gun and protect themselves, but realistically, when you consider most of times one is at high risk of injury from another person, a gun would not or could not be used and I think that's a disservice to those seeking personal safety to say they should own a gun. That same woman would do herself more to carry pepper spray, a stun gun, or take self defense classes than to go out and buy a handgun for protection. Except in certain situations, most of the times when she will be at risk of harm, the gun will not be an available option for her.

I absolutely agree. .

Firearms are designed to kill other living creatures; however, like you said, if it's known (or potentially known) that someone else is "packing heat" then the chances of someone else pulling a gun are decreased. Unlike what some would have us believe, very few truly wish to get involved in a shootout. The outcome is rarely good and most parties understand this. Your nuclear weapons analogy is a good one and if you don't mind, I may "borrow" it for the future.

I think you're right, though, about where one may or may not carry a firearm. That's why I see no purpose to a CHL. Most places of business won't allow a gun on their property, so what's the point? Having the ability to carry a firearm with you won't do any good if you need to leave it in your car. The entire point of a CHL is immediate access to it in the event of an emergency. Perhaps something such as pepper spray, a taser, or martial arts training would be better for a woman (or even a man, since men are also targets of violence as well -- particularly gang-related or if the perpetrator is a psychopath) to have on her most of the time.

when a business denies someone (a person legally able to chl) the right to carry, the business also assumes responsibility for that persons safety ... this is a litigious society

oh ... and if the person is chl properly, how will the business know about the carry ?

actually, i've got a stack of cards in my wallet for this very situation.

it says "i only shop where i can carry"

if those who do carry take their business elsewhere, then perhaps business owners might realize they are much safer with cch holders permitted in their business rather than having a sign that essentially announces "this store is unarmed please rob us"

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

in theory, sure. and hand in hand with that theory, i've finally calculated when my dad woulda stopped beating my azz had i done so - it woulda been about 14 months ago.

Sure - but what I'm saying is that if you were to have done something like this kid or the Virginia Tech guy, threats of being beaten wouldn't exactly be a deterrent if you were planning on shooting yourself anyway.

Ultimately what I'm getting at is that it comes down to trust, which is fair enough. But again hypothetically if you were to ever have broken that trust in this way I think would be hard to argue that your father wouldn't be at least indirectly responsible for what you did.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Sure - but in the very specific context of this thread - that of insane psychotic people going on a kill-crazy rampage, being empowered to carry out their schemes through the ease of availablity of firearms - comparisons with drink drivers who kill people not through intent, but through negligence aren't very apt.

i guess there wasn't a problem with anthrax being distributed through the postal system 6 years ago either .......

ever notice the warning is probably still posted in the mail room where you work ?

What does that have to do with the price of fish?

I pointed out that drink drivers who kill through negligence are of a different order to insane people who use firearms to kill with abandon, even if the end result is the same.

If you're making comparisons between negligence and intent and suggesting that a drink driver is the same as a gun-wielding maniac - at least stick with it, rather than jumping off to something else when the first example is shown to be ludicrous.

Edited October 12, 2007 by Number 6

[pedroh 21]

There's middle ground here - although a gun's primary or sole purpose is to discharge a projectile which can penetrate through human flesh, it can prevent violence as a deterent. It's the same argument about nuclear weapons, but on a smaller scale - if one country knows that any military aggression it uses towards it's adversary will be matched by nuclear retaliation that would be devastating. That said, I don't think a gun is the best deterrent (best way for one to protect themselves) in most situations.

Example: A woman walking to and from her car to her place of employment. Although she is at risk of being attacked, she cannot carry a gun with her to work (for most jobs anyway). I'm in full support for people's right to carry a gun and protect themselves, but realistically, when you consider most of times one is at high risk of injury from another person, a gun would not or could not be used and I think that's a disservice to those seeking personal safety to say they should own a gun. That same woman would do herself more to carry pepper spray, a stun gun, or take self defense classes than to go out and buy a handgun for protection. Except in certain situations, most of the times when she will be at risk of harm, the gun will not be an available option for her.

I absolutely agree. .

Firearms are designed to kill other living creatures; however, like you said, if it's known (or potentially known) that someone else is "packing heat" then the chances of someone else pulling a gun are decreased. Unlike what some would have us believe, very few truly wish to get involved in a shootout. The outcome is rarely good and most parties understand this. Your nuclear weapons analogy is a good one and if you don't mind, I may "borrow" it for the future.

I think you're right, though, about where one may or may not carry a firearm. That's why I see no purpose to a CHL. Most places of business won't allow a gun on their property, so what's the point? Having the ability to carry a firearm with you won't do any good if you need to leave it in your car. The entire point of a CHL is immediate access to it in the event of an emergency. Perhaps something such as pepper spray, a taser, or martial arts training would be better for a woman (or even a man, since men are also targets of violence as well -- particularly gang-related or if the perpetrator is a psychopath) to have on her most of the time.

when a business denies someone (a person legally able to chl) the right to carry, the business also assumes responsibility for that persons safety ... this is a litigious society

oh ... and if the person is chl properly, how will the business know about the carry ?

actually, i've got a stack of cards in my wallet for this very situation.

it says "i only shop where i can carry"

if those who do carry take their business elsewhere, then perhaps business owners might realize they are much safer with cch holders permitted in their business rather than having a sign that essentially announces "this store is unarmed please rob us"

so where do you go shopping? lots of places don't allow concealed guns.. and.. well.. why carry a gun all the time, if you carry one.. how often have you had to use it? wouldn't that be kinda paranoic, carrying a gun for the 'just in case'? if you lived in a high crime rate area, that'd make sense, but if you live in a nice place, why carry one? or why carrying one to your worksite? who's gonna go and take all people hostage? isn' that, too paranoic?

and, why not have other preventive measurements against thiefs.. shooting someone cuz they want to steal ur wallet, is kinda extreme imo..

Edited October 12, 2007 by pedroh

[natty bumppo 297]

Sure - but in the very specific context of this thread - that of insane psychotic people going on a kill-crazy rampage, being empowered to carry out their schemes through the ease of availablity of firearms - comparisons with drink drivers who kill people not through intent, but through negligence aren't very apt.

i guess there wasn't a problem with anthrax being distributed through the postal system 6 years ago either .......

ever notice the warning is probably still posted in the mail room where you work ?

What does that have to do with the price of fish?

I pointed out that drink drivers who kill through negligence are of a different order to insane people who use firearms to kill with abandon, even if the end result is the same.

If you're making comparisons between negligence and intent and suggesting that a drink driver is the same as a gun-wielding maniac - at least stick with it, rather than jumping off to something else when the first example is shown to be ludicrous.

you were talking about insane people ... with intent. I gave an example.

actually I don't think fish had anything to do with the actions of those with intent to distribute poison and kill people.

a gun was not selected as the weapon of choice ... some other means of causing death was.

are drunk drivers really negligent? or doing a criminal (willful) act ?

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

in theory, sure. and hand in hand with that theory, i've finally calculated when my dad woulda stopped beating my azz had i done so - it woulda been about 14 months ago.

Sure - but what I'm saying is that if you were to have done something like this kid or the Virginia Tech guy, threats of being beaten wouldn't exactly be a deterrent if you were planning on shooting yourself anyway.

Ultimately what I'm getting at is that it comes down to trust, which is fair enough. But again hypothetically if you were to ever have broken that trust in this way I think would be hard to argue that your father wouldn't be at least indirectly responsible for what you did.

dad was more fearsome than death, believe me

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

you were talking about insane people ... with intent. I gave an example.

actually I don't think fish had anything to do with the actions of those with intent to distribute poison and kill people.

a gun was not selected as the weapon of choice ... some other means of causing death was.

are drunk drivers really negligent? or doing a criminal (willful) act ?

I never denied that you don't have to have a gun to kill with intent - I guess its just coincidence that all of these rampages: Virginia Tech, Columbine, the police officer the other day, and this kid - all chose the gun to carry out their plan.

And yes - drunk drivers are negligent, regardless of how the law classifies that negligence as wilful intent. At a guess - I'd say that a person who gets boozed up and decides to drive home probably isn't thinking about how many people they can mow down on the way. Now someone who gets up in the morning with the express intent on committing murder... well...

dad was more fearsome than death, believe me

Fair enough. I can relate.

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

so where do you go shopping? lots of places don't allow concealed guns.. and.. well.. why carry a gun all the time, if you carry one.. how often have you had to use it? wouldn't that be kinda paranoic, carrying a gun for the 'just in case'? if you lived in a high crime rate area, that'd make sense, but if you live in a nice place, why carry one? or why carrying one to your worksite? who's gonna go and take all people hostage? isn' that, too paranoic?

and, why not have other preventive measurements against thiefs.. shooting someone cuz they want to steal ur wallet, is kinda extreme imo..

mostly i shop on base, rarely off base. not had to use one, i hardly even carry mine. i do not like to be restricted though and i believe that not being able to keep it on you while downtown because some store owner does not like you having one is a bigger threat than my carrying it - i.e. i have to leave it in my car, which has the potention of being seen and the car being broken into/stolen. so you tell me, which is a greater threat: me legally carrying or having the firearm stored in an unattended vehicle in the parking lot?

while on the topic of extreme, isn't that quite an apt description of those who want outlaw guns in a shortsighted attempt to solve this issue?

[DeadPoolX 9]

when a business denies someone (a person legally able to chl) the right to carry, the business also assumes responsibility for that persons safety ... this is a litigious society

oh ... and if the person is chl properly, how will the business know about the carry ?

A company may permit or deny anyone they choose from doing business with them for anyone reason, so long as it doesn't violate the law. As it stands right now, it's not against the law to state "you may not bring firearms inside this [wherever] or anywhere immediately around it." Most patrons and business owners would feel very uncomfortable knowing that someone was armed there. Not everyone, of course, but most.

As for how someone would know? Well, if they were utilizing a CHL properly, no one would probably know, but that's like saying, "If I drive with an expired license and I don't get pulled over, who's going to find out?" It doesn't matter if anyone finds out or not. The point is you're not supposed to be doing it, period. If a place of business specifically states "no firearms" then you cannot bring a gun inside, CHL or not. It doesn't matter if anyone detects it. That business has the right and legal authority to tell it's consumers what they are and aren't allowed to bring in (such as it can state the old "no shirt, no shoes, no service" routine as well), so you can either abide by those rules set forth or go somewhere else.

actually, i've got a stack of cards in my wallet for this very situation.

it says "i only shop where i can carry"

if those who do carry take their business elsewhere, then perhaps business owners might realize they are much safer with cch holders permitted in their business rather than having a sign that essentially announces "this store is unarmed please rob us"

That's a good idea. If you want a business to change their methods, perhaps doing something like that may nudge them in the right direction. The best place to hit any company is where it hurts -- in the pocketbook.

so where do you go shopping? lots of places don't allow concealed guns.. and.. well.. why carry a gun all the time, if you carry one.. how often have you had to use it? wouldn't that be kinda paranoic, carrying a gun for the 'just in case'? if you lived in a high crime rate area, that'd make sense, but if you live in a nice place, why carry one? or why carrying one to your worksite? who's gonna go and take all people hostage? isn' that, too paranoic?

and, why not have other preventive measurements against thiefs.. shooting someone cuz they want to steal ur wallet, is kinda extreme imo..

Most places I've seen, regardless of the area, don't allow weapons (including guns, concealed or otherwise), so I don't really see the point. Sure, it might be nice in some ways to have your own protection with you, but if a patron or someone who works at the business caught you (and there's always that chance), then you might have the police on your butt instead! I'd rather not deal with that hassle. At least not until my fiancee and I are living together. Getting through Customs is tough enough, without explaining why I got arrested for carrying in a concealed weapon when the rules stated I wasn't legally allowed to (CHL or not).

[pedroh 21]

so where do you go shopping? lots of places don't allow concealed guns.. and.. well.. why carry a gun all the time, if you carry one.. how often have you had to use it? wouldn't that be kinda paranoic, carrying a gun for the 'just in case'? if you lived in a high crime rate area, that'd make sense, but if you live in a nice place, why carry one? or why carrying one to your worksite? who's gonna go and take all people hostage? isn' that, too paranoic?

and, why not have other preventive measurements against thiefs.. shooting someone cuz they want to steal ur wallet, is kinda extreme imo..

mostly i shop on base, rarely off base. not had to use one, i hardly even carry mine. i do not like to be restricted though and i believe that not being able to keep it on you while downtown because some store owner does not like you having one is a bigger threat than my carrying it - i.e. i have to leave it in my car, which has the potention of being seen and the car being broken into/stolen. so you tell me, which is a greater threat: me legally carrying or having the firearm stored in an unattended vehicle in the parking lot?

while on the topic of extreme, isn't that quite an apt description of those who want outlaw guns in a shortsighted attempt to solve this issue?

oh. well, you're military.. you know how to use a weapon.. but, I really don't think those concealed weapon courses and whatnot give you the experience or the know how to anyone who wants to buy a gun...

I don't think thought that you should just let someone steall ur wallet or mug you and just stand there, but.. going trigger happy on any criminal or suspicious activity, don't think its the solution either... cuz first it'd be, oh you try to mug me, i'll shoot ya, then it'll be, oh, you're being mean to me, i'll shoot ya.. and, I dunno, I still think its paranoic to like wanting to go to best buy, and someone saying, ahh na, don't go to best buy, they dont allow packing.. I know robberies happen, and no business is 100% safe.. but heck