Saw Stop would have prevented this

-------------------------------------------------------------- BullShit.

I find the recent murder of the Dallas DA, his wife and a deputy DA to be a little bit ironic.

According to the DA's son he kept more than a dozen fully loaded firearms in his home including one on each side and one behind a chair used for watching TV.

The DA had gathered up these firearms and placed them out of sight that evening since they were going to entertain guests that night.

It is coming out that a Justice of the Piece, who the DA and his deputy had convicted the JP of theft of gov't property.

Kind of ironic.

If universal background check had been in place, the JP would have lost his right to possess firearms as a result of becoming a convicted felon, and both these senseless murders would have been avoided.

Sorry, but I have no sympathy for these paranoid gun toting folks; however, the firearms and ammunition manufacturers could not survive without them.

Lew

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 21:21:30 -0500, Leon

Your country specific taunts are beneath you.

Considering the increasing amount of nut jobs that appear in society these days, I for one would prefer as few firearms around them as possible.

It has been repeatedly proven that it takes constant training and preparedness by people (those in law enforcement for example) to react properly to on the spot gun shootings. You'd have your everyday citizen armed and ready to pull out a gun and start shooting? Don't be ridiculous.

Yeah, because a bad guy never stole a gun to murder anyone.

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 21:23:48 -0500, -MIKE-

And you don't have a clue what you're talking about. I watched a television show recently where people were shown how to handle and discharge a firearm. They then were sent out carrying the hand gun thinking it was loaded with real ammunition.

Then when in a classroom setting, someone burst into the room and started shooting people. Every damned one of them forgot their training in the face of presumed REAL danger.

How do you explain that? Even for law enforcement professionals, CONSTANT training and readiness preparation is essential to handle these sudden situations that you want everybody to be armed for.

Where and how had this been proven?

Ridiculous? What's ridiculous is thinking having a badge on one's shirt makes them somehow inherently better at using firearms. I know of teenagers who have better aim and gun control than most cops. The vast majority cops only discharge their firearms at the shooting range. Most private gun owners shoot their weapons much more frequently than cops. They used to teach firearms procedure and shooting in high schools. People weren't afraid of guns back then. They saw them as the tools they were and trained their children to use and respect them.

Since this recent gun control debate has started, there have many stories in the news of homeowners who have defended themselves from intruders with their personal firearms.

Why is it that the cities with the strictest guns control laws and bans on hand guns still have the highest (by leaps and bounds) rates for murder by guns?

I'd a link for this show. How long was the training? A weekend?

Well, to be country specific, the U.S. has a little thing in our Constitution called the Second Amendment. Our citizenry has been (mostly) armed for the last 300 years or so. Only recently have we given up the remedy for misuse of firearms of hanging the perpetrators, and therein lies the problem.

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 22:06:45 -0500, -MIKE-

Which is the point I've repeated tried to make. The less guns there are around, the less there are for someone to steal.

The only response that seems to be made these days is that there are so many guns around that it's a waste of time trying to limit them. So, why try? That seems to be the attitude of many people in the US. Giving up is not an attitude that I'd generally attribute to the US as a whole.

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 22:16:23 -0500, -MIKE-

Because generally, they have more, better and appropriate training that your average citizen in a dangerous situation. At least, they do in Canada. I may be mistaken in thinking the same existed for law enforcement in the US.

It's not the proper use of a firearm that's in question. It's the proper use of a firm arm in a dangerous, extremely stressful situation that I'm talking about. Anybody had aim and shoot a gun. It takes repeated training to do it properly in a dangerous situation.

And perhaps I should counter with: How many stories have there been where a home owner has unsuccessfully defended themselves? And then, you can also add to that equation: How many homeowners have had their home burglarize and had their guns stolen?

However many examples you can provide of good outcomes involving guns, there are many more where the opposite has happened.

There is no reason to limit guns. It is also unconstitutional to do so in the US. If we were to ban guns like they do in Chicago, the bad guys can still get them illegally. Chicago has the highest gun murder rate in the country and has the strictest gun control laws. All banning guns does is stop the law abiding citizens from being able to defend themselves.

In areas where more homes and citizens have more guns, there is less crime. There is a simple explanation for that. The bad guys know if they try to rob someone in these areas, there's a good chance they will get their ass shot attempting it.

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 22:20:05 -0500, -MIKE-

Probably not much more. I'm searching for a link to this show. I'll let you know if I find it.

The main point of the show was that people react differently under stress. And apparently, to properly handle yourself under those situations, you have to constantly train for and be prepared for them.

Only recently have we

Exactly!

They were Canadian! ;~) Canadians are used to living with out guns and I feel that is OK if that is what you want. But our constitutions gives us the right to have fire arms and that is a very old tradition so we are not going to poop when we see a gun.

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 20:21:38 -0700, Doug Winterburn

I'd suggest that your point was valid those 300 years or so ago. Society has change quite a bit on 300 years. The firearm is not necessary for survival, at least not in a food sense. And considering the close confines of people in cities, a gun can be a dangerous thing to have around.

From some of the easy convictions handed down these days, I'd tend to agree with you.

Yet the bad guys seem to get enough training. In every city in America and most rural areas there are firearms training courses, which include tactical weapons training. it's a matter of priority. If you have a table saw, you seek training to know how to use it. Same with guns.

I can also point out that there are a thousand times more deaths by automobile, but no one is banning them. There are hundreds of times more deaths from baseball bats and hammers, but no one is trying to ban them.

In Israel, every child has to go through military training and service that includes tactical gun use. Switzerland requires every male adult to own firearms and go through extensive training. Both countries have extremely low gun homicide rates.

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 22:47:12 -0500, Leon

Yeah, ok, that's funny. A polar bear or moose, we Canadians are prepared to wrestle them to the ground, but we when we come up against other people with guns, we run and hide in our igloos.

You better hope that when I find the information on this show, that it wasn't a US made show.

:)

The point is the show is bullshit. You need trained to use tools and weapons, period. Private firearms owners routinely practice and train more than police officers. And what would be the big deal of requiring training? Instead of passing laws to ban weapons, pass laws to insure people who are exercising their

Better yet, require training and license parents ...