Of the two links you cite above, only one really rises the the "normal
citizen who decided to carry a gun that day" The case of the two men
returning still falls under a pre-meditated act. We have had similar cases
in the US where angry people return to a place from which they have been
bounced in a vehicle traveling at high speed with the intent to run down
the doorman and others.
What you've already provided shoots down your assertion, while a very
small number of cases may occur (some of which, as stated above are simply
because the gun was the closest tool), your links indicate that the largest
number of such deaths are a result of getting caught in gangland or
drug-related violence -- both of which will not be resolved by disarming
regular citizens. As I asked before, for the small number of the other
cases that appear to get a great deal of highly charged press, you are not
informed of the many times when a law abiding citizen with a gun prevents
violence to themselves or loved ones.
I'd much rather take my chances with being able to defend myself while
have a vanishingly small chance of encountering something such as you
describe than being made into an unarmed victim in a disarmed populace.
You people in Canada can do as you please -- gun control has really worked
out well for Britain and also Australia where violent crime is up now that
the criminals know the people are unable to defend themselves.
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
"Australia's Gun Laws: Little Effect"
"In 2002-3, Australia's rate of 0.27 gun-related homicides per
100,000 people was one-fifteenth that of the U.S. rate."
While the period of time necessary for pre-mediation to exist varies to a
certain amount, leaving a bar angry and coming back within a few minutes
doesn't fall into the pre-meditation category as far as I'm concerned. He
was angry when he left and was still under the same cloud of anger when he
came back and pulled the trigger. Nevertheless, it's obvious whatever I say
or what proof I provide isn't going to change your mind.
That statement is meaningless. The reason why it happens so rarely up here
is that the vast bulk of the general public don't own or have access to guns
to use as a means of self defence. You might state that information of that
type is kept from public knowledge so people don't get the idea of arming
themselves, but you'd be wrong. I worked with Metro Police for a period and
a close friend of mine, was a sergeant with them at the time. If that type
of thing was happening, I'd have heard about it.
You live where you live and I live here. There's a number of reasons for my
knowledge and experience here to be in excess of what you might believe to
be true, but that's your choice. Believe what you like.
On Thu, 4 Dec 2008 03:48:16 -0500, Upscale cast forth these pearls of
I simply responded to the fanatical statement about warring citizens if
guns were more commonplace.
You have an interesting definition of stressed. I'm not surprised at it
though. I've watched your comments in enough of these off topic diatribes
here to realize you are much like Lew in that both of you delight in
darting conversations off to the side with irrelevant red herrings, and
then you try to turn the focus back on those who catch you at your game.
My guess is that is really quite stressful for you. It's really quite
evident in the manner in which you quickly resort to the ad-hominem
Maybe you have a temper that is more out of control than the majority of
the people around you, and that causes you to see everyone else through
your own eyes. The reality is that people already do own guns, they
already do experience the stresses, anguishes and turmoils of life, and
they do not go for those guns as a coping mechanism. The argument that
they may is what does not make any sense.
What constitues "a fair amount", and what are the references for this?
The last statement is the most accurate one you've made in this thread.
Extend that to drivers license too. Road rage is more dangerous with more
horse power than any gun and fools can take out groups with one aim and
action. There are a lot of dummies with keys. Fewer carry loaded guns
wherever they go. If they do carry a gun, if sober it might be better to
run you over. That might fly as an accident in court.
A shooting always looks like malice.
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 00:59:17 GMT, Han cast forth these pearls of wisdom...:
And those restrictions (not arguing their merit), would do precisely
what(?) to prevent these types of incidents? Do you really feel that the
perpetrators of this type of crime worry about legal posession of a gun?
Sorry Han, but this is more of the same reactive sort of thinking that does
nothing to benefit a matter, but does a lot to impare those who aren't your
typical, or even your remotely typical culprit.
Well, where do the guns to commit crimes come from? If everyone has
guns, then it is easy to steal some. If not everyone has guns, and those
that do lock them up well, then (maybe) there will be fewer guns to
commit crimes with.
No I don't think the bad guys worry about legal possession, but see
Sorry, I can't quite follow what you're trying to say.
Let me just paraphrase what's happened in NYC a numbver of years back.
Police were told to get after farejumpers (people who didn't pay the fare
for the subway, mainly). This way a lot of people left their illegal
weapons at home, after they or their friends had them nabbed by the
police. Either as a result, or because of changing demographics or
because of other reasons, the crime rate went down. I happen to believe
that nabbing bad guys had something to do with it. So good laws and good
law enforcement will help. It's not the whole thing, of course. And
laws like the voting/literacy laws were not good laws.
I'll crawl back into my hole now ...
Lock it up as well as you want to, if someone wants it they will steal
it. Pass a chain through a window, run it around the gun safe, hook
it to the trailer hitch on your truck, drive away, and the safe comes
right out, through the wall. Toss it in your truck and drive off and
open it at your leisure.
Then there are the firearms that disappear from police evidence
Then there are the ones that come in with the drugs.
What of it? Iraq was a police state before the US invaded, and yet it
seems, despite Saddam's best efforts before the US arrived and the US
military occupation's best efforts since, that any Iraqi who wants a
gun (or bomb or RPG or just about any other kind of weapon) has one.
Nabbing bad guys is fine. But I don't see what it has to do with
The reports are in.
Seems two women got into a "cat" fight, hair pulling, the whole bit,
inside the store.
The men accompanying the women were each packing heat (Just what you
need to go to the toy store) which they pulled out and shot and killed
each other as the fight escalated..
Good heavens! Could a newspaper story be any more sensationalized?
Whatever happened to just reporting the facts? Whoever wrote this intended
to make it sound like a movie scene.
No wonder the dead tree media is on its way downhill.
Several clues as to what transpired, who was involved, and the fact that
more gun laws probably wouldn't have had any sort of impact:
"... a dispute between two couples who had 'previous hostility.'"
"... pulling the grip from his baggy pants pocket."
" ... Even after the shooting, one woman was still screaming
angrily. ... "I'm going to . . . kill you right now!" she shouted, slamming
her fists on the car. "I'm going to kill you! Yeah, you!" "
Not a lot to go on, but one can make some inferences. Of course the
reporters don't provide any additional context, they were too busy writing
their Hollywood script.
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
and what part of "It's a miracle that these were the only two people
killed, given it was a crowded toy store." is so difficult for you to
understand. Two knuckleheads with guns shooting in a crowded store and
you are whining about the "sensationalized" writeup. You have truly
lost your soul somewhere.
I don't see any miracle. I see that two guys took a shot at each other and
hit the target they aimed at. I don't condone what they did, but they did
not shoot at innocent people, nor did they hit any. Perhaps they spent
hours at a shooting range and learned how to aim. Maybe they should get the
Darwin Sharpshooters Award.
Perhaps one of the two should be a hero for taking the other one out. Let's
get the rest of the story and base a decision on facts.
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.