The "aberrant behavior" is just normal holiday shopping madness. And this
sort of thing has happened at walmart before. Which is why I will not go
near any of those mob type of sales. Women, in particular, become a
frenzied mob when their are limited bargains available. I wonder what the
evolutionary biologists would say about this.
There was a case locally, a few years ago, in a parking structure at a mall.
The season was Christmas and parking was scarce. A parking space opened up
and a woman driving her car darted into the spot. There was another woman,
carrying packages, walking by. She got run over. The individual who ran her
over ran into the mall to go shopping, leaving her victim laying on the
cement with packages scattered.
Witnesses ran to her aid and called the police and the medics. Sho was
transported to a hospital and the police waited for the hit and run driver.
She came out of the mall and became very indignant when placed under arrest.
Her explanation, "Parking was hard to find and she got in my way."
These kinds of holiday madness events occur every year. Sad to say, but that
is the way it is.
As this is being typed the news is coming in that gunman have entered
a Toys-R-Us store in Palm Desert, Ca (about 100 miles east of downtown
L/A), and are shooting up the place.
Too early for casualty reports.
The mess in India continues.
What the hell is this world coming to?
I believe that in order to be allowed to have a firearm, one should have
to pass examinations in firearm safety, mental stability, and have never
been convicted of any crime or tresspass with violent overtones,
including sale of a firearm to unauthorized person(s). Anyone who fails
any such exam should be entered onto a blacklist.
The right to bear arms should not be extended to those not qualifying.
Hey, my opinions are mine!!
It's already illegal for anyone who has been judged incompetent, been
convicted of a felony (including sale of a firearm to unauthorized persons)
to possess a firearm.
Have you heard of the National Instant Background Check? Before
purchasing a firearm, that database is consulted and if any of the
conditions stated above, plus a few more such as outstanding restraining
orders, arrest (not necessarily conviction) for domestic violence, and
several others are encountered, the sale is refused.
Wouldn't it be better if California had more liberal carry laws in which
the gunmen (already committing an illegal act) didn't know who might be
armed and put a stop to their mayhem?
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
No, ability to use the instrument desired in a manner that is safe to the
user and others. I have no objection to people having guns if they are
used and stored in a safe manner. Well, I still think it would be a
little too easy for an "accident", but US law says apparently that you
are allowed a firearm.
Yes, I have heard of the NIBC. Also, that it is easily circumvented in
some states/cases. That's why I think a license is a good thing.
No, I don't think we should have multiple participants in a shootout.
This case is a good example. Do you really want 10 other people to pull
out handguns and start shooting at each other in a crowded department
You've missed the point. If one has to pass examinations then the
examinations can be used in a discriminatory or unreasonably
restrictive manner--in parts of the US they were used to prevent
minorities from voting--the tests were designed in such a manner that
the scoring was a judgment call, and in the judgment of the scorers no
black person was literate no matter what answere he gave while any
white person was literate even if he couldn't read. In parts of the
US there have been requirements for such examinations to be taken in
order to be allowed to own a firearm. The tests were given very
rarely in unexpected places with no prior announcement and the number
of applicants allowed at any given session was very small--in effect
the only people who were allowed to own firearms were those who had
enough political influence to be informed by word of mouth.
Accidental shootings in the US are quite rare. More people die in
bicycle accidents than in firearms accidents, but we place no
restriction on the ownership of bicycles (and we should--an amazing
number of bicyclists don't seem to be aware that they are expected to
obey traffic laws).
Oh, how is it "easily circumvented"? The only manners I am aware of
by which it has been "circumvented" are straw man sales, which are
felonious crimes, and private party transactions which are not
regulated mainly because Congress knows damn well that trying to
regulate them has about as much likelihood of success as an attempt to
A requirement for a license would not prevent either class of sale.
Further, according to the US Constitution and to the US Supreme Court,
the ownership of firearms is a right, it is not a privilege, and so is
no more subject to licensing than is free speech.
Many states in the US have "must issue" carry permit laws that state
that anyone who applies for a carry permit must be issued one unless
he is a convicted felon or otherwise prohibited from owning a firearm.
Can you give us an example of _one_ incident in which as a result "10
other people pulled out handguns and started shooting at each other"?
Happens in gang fights all the time. One person pulls out a gun and then so
do all the others. But then, they're gangs and that's not what you're
However, if you and a dozen friends were all armed and your best friend
pulled out a gun to defend himself, there's a excellent chance you would
too. If you were just walking along and you heard some bullets zip by,
wouldn't your first impulse be to pull out your gun too? If your first
inclination would be to run and hide, then why would you be carrying a gun
in the first place? Face it, if someone is carrying a gun, they they're
prepared to pull it as necessary. When you don't carry a gun, then you're
prepared to take different steps.
Deeply flawed premise... Pulling out one's weapon is the second thing to do.
Ducking behind cover is first. If possible, running a VERY short distance
to cover is a good way to get to that cover. Running far is a good way to
get shot in the back by a bad guy or a cop.
Prepared or not, if you are not armed, your choices are more limited. Duck,
hide, evade, and sneak are the ONLY options left. For people who are not
young, agile, or otherwise similar to soldier material, running to evade is
not a viable option.
Whether armed or not, the first defense is to avoid places where psychos and
junkies frequently go hunting victims.
When that does not work, the armed individual (defender) must use guile,
skill, calm judgment, and great care to survive. The initial aggressor (bad
guy) has most of the advantages.
A situation of that kind went the right way one night in Alabama a few years
ago. An armed older ("senior") fellow and his family were at a restaurant
eating. Bad guys entered and held the patrons at gunpoint to rob them.
Hoping to not increase the danger to his family, the armed older fellow was
going to go peacefully along with being robbed. Then the bad guys began
herding people into the freezer room of the restaurant. Knowing that other
recent robberies had occurred where the victims were murdered in the freezer
rooms in restaurants, the armed older ("senior") fellow drew his weapon and
shot the robbers, killing 2 of them. A couple of "good guy" people were
wounded (bullets can pass completely through bad guys and hit other people),
but no "good guys" died. The dead and wounded bad guys were later
identified as the murderers in the previous restaurant robbery/killings. A
horible nightmare was minimized by a peace loving, armed man.
It happens all the time in situations where no shots have to be fired, but
those seldom get reported.
Bless that armed older fellow who had his gun on him and used it.
Desperation, guts, a gun, and no place to "run and hide"... in Life and
Death situations, the real world is infinitely variable, but seldom like
abstract mental constructs (dreams based on limited or erroneous
information), TV, or movies.
Yes, your opinions are yours *S*.
Criminals don't have sensitivity training, weapons training, scruples,
Sooo.. MY idea, is that in order to be equal to the enemy, one must
think and behave like one. IOW, get a gun when you can, to hell with
regulations. The biggest fear I have, is a government that tries to
disarm its population. What COULD they be up to?
If I am to believe that I have nothing to fear, then nobody should fear
my .50 calibre. It is in good, safe, well-trained hands.
I take care of my stuff, you take care of yours.
And if you know what you're doing, a .50 calibre can take out an Apache
helicopter, talking to it won't work. <G>
Under Federal law no person who has been convicted of a felony or been
adjudicated criminally insane is allowed to own a firearm, so you
pretty much have what you want.
It used to be that being committed would be a block, but the courts
struck that down.
Passing examinations in order to exercise a right has a very bad
reputation in the US, where such tests were used to bar minorities
In which case it becomes a privilege and not a right.
Good idea in principle, Han, but I doubt it'd keep any firearms out of the
possession of criminals. All it would do is penalize the honest citizen.
Anyone who knew they couldn't pass the exam would just get a gun on the
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.