Armed citizens

[Black_Jaque]

With all the hub-ub about the VT shootings and the gun control debate, I wonder if the press is doing a disservice to the American people by playing up the VT shootings and playing down the instances where a would-be murder is stopped by an armed citizen.

Perhaps the people who commit these ghastly crimes are on some sort of power trip. There’s a sort of copy-cat syndrome when one person makes a big splash by committing this crime. Why? Because other soon-to-be shootists read the headlines and are wowed by the pandemonia they can cause.

If, however, those “on-the-edge” read about how often these cases are foiled, they would seek some other means to get their power trip.

Remember the serial murders of the '70s? It was a good way to cause panic, but then someone had the brilliant idea of opening fire on school grounds. Ever notice nobody opens fire on police stations or military forts? Your power trip is completely vaporized when someone starts shooting back.

 

[drafdog]

Re: Opening fire on police stations and military bases

Obviously you have not followed the reports from Northern Ireland regarding attacks on police and British Army posts. Or reports from Iraq. Fanatics and other nuts just don’t care.

The people who engage in random shooting are not looking for power; they are deranged persons and the only way to keep the random nuts from killing the less crazy portion of the population is to keep the guns out of their hands in the first place. The NRA will want my head for that but it will work.
As for armed citizens opening fire on someone with a gun, can you imagine the number of innocent bystanders who will be hit by such a fusilage? Not everyone is a marksman. In the midst of such a scene, someone is certain to mistake who the real target is and the whole business will end up making VA Tech look like a Sunday walk in the park.

Matthew

 

[Brendan]

As for armed citizens opening fire on someone with a gun, can you imagine the number of innocent bystanders who will be hit by such a fusilage? Not everyone is a marksman. In the midst of such a scene, someone is certain to mistake who the real target is and the whole business will end up making VA Tech look like a Sunday walk in the park.

Matthew

It would’nt be any different that the police ‘opening up’ on the aggressor. Most of those I know who carry pistols practice FAR more than your average cop.

 

[redmars3000]

Re: Opening fire on police stations and military bases

Obviously you have not followed the reports from Northern Ireland regarding attacks on police and British Army posts. Or reports from Iraq. Fanatics and other nuts just don’t care.

The people who engage in random shooting are not looking for power; they are deranged persons and the only way to keep the random nuts from killing the less crazy portion of the population is to keep the guns out of their hands in the first place. The NRA will want my head for that but it will work.
As for armed citizens opening fire on someone with a gun, can you imagine the number of innocent bystanders who will be hit by such a fusilage? Not everyone is a marksman. In the midst of such a scene, someone is certain to mistake who the real target is and the whole business will end up making VA Tech look like a Sunday walk in the park.

Matthew

In Texas you cannot carry a handgun in public without a license. You have to go through intense education and background checks before you can be allowed to carry a concealed handgun. Part of that training is to know when you can and cannot shoot due to the very reasons you describe. Getting a concealed handgun license is not a free-for-all.

 

[vern_humphrey]

As for armed citizens opening fire on someone with a gun, can you imagine the number of innocent bystanders who will be hit by such a fusilage? Not everyone is a marksman. In the midst of such a scene, someone is certain to mistake who the real target is and the whole business will end up making VA Tech look like a Sunday walk in the park.

Matthew

You have to imagine it – because despite the fact that millions of Americans have licenses to carry concealed handguns, and they use those handguns in self defense – and have for many years – you can’t find an instance in which “numbers of innocent bystanders were hit by such a fusilage.”

 

[rstegeman]

Re: Opening fire on police stations and military bases

Obviously you have not followed the reports from Northern Ireland regarding attacks on police and British Army posts. Or reports from Iraq. Fanatics and other nuts just don’t care.

The people who engage in random shooting are not looking for power; they are deranged persons and the only way to keep the random nuts from killing the less crazy portion of the population is to keep the guns out of their hands in the first place. The NRA will want my head for that but it will work.
As for armed citizens opening fire on someone with a gun, can you imagine the number of innocent bystanders who will be hit by such a fusilage? Not everyone is a marksman. In the midst of such a scene, someone is certain to mistake who the real target is and the whole business will end up making VA Tech look like a Sunday walk in the park.

Matthew

The problem is, HOW do we keep the guns out of the hands of the lunatics in the first place? If you come up with a way to do that, let the world know.

I don’t own a gun myself and don’t think I ever will, but unlike many liberals, I will not fool myself into believing that banning guns will magically keep attrocities like VT from ever happening again. The criminal element is just that because they don’t play by the rules. Banning guns just means that they have to look somewhere else for weapons.

I agree that the media is partly to blame for these copycat crimes. What better way to make sure that your name is remembered by history. With the VT shooting, we know the face and name of the shooter, but aside from those directly affected, who could name or recognize any of the victims? Same for Columbine, 9/11, most serial killers, etc. I mean, look at Son of Sam or the Zodiac killer for instance, those guys have these odd names pushed down our throats by the media, and years later, movies are made of their exploits.

I know bad news sells, but by playing that kid’s video, the media did just what he wanted. They made him a star…a legend.

 

[mgrobertson79]

Re: Opening fire on police stations and military bases

Obviously you have not followed the reports from Northern Ireland regarding attacks on police and British Army posts. Or reports from Iraq. Fanatics and other nuts just don’t care.

The people who engage in random shooting are not looking for power; they are deranged persons and the only way to keep the random nuts from killing the less crazy portion of the population is to keep the guns out of their hands in the first place. The NRA will want my head for that but it will work.
As for armed citizens opening fire on someone with a gun, can you imagine the number of innocent bystanders who will be hit by such a fusilage? Not everyone is a marksman. In the midst of such a scene, someone is certain to mistake who the real target is and the whole business will end up making VA Tech look like a Sunday walk in the park.

Matthew

This is liberal propaganda you are spouting here. There are no, none, ZERO, 0 facts to back up your comment. Gun Control is a CONTROL issue. It has NOTHING to do with your safety or the safety of Law Enforcement or anyone else.

Look at what happened in Germany in 1933 I believe when Hitler banned guns. The gestapo and SS started rounding up defenseless Jews and others they hated and put them in camps to starve and do other unmentionable acts.

This is the reason for our second amendment. It is a “reset” button for the constitution and though we have never really needed it. If gun control on a mass scale takes place, It will come to that. I don’t advocate the overthrow of a government, especially of the US, but I will not stand idly by while the constitution is stripped of all meaning my totalitarian power grabbers like Charley Shumer.

The way our government is supposed to work is the people have the power, not the politicians. If they want it otherwise, they will have to take it.

BTW, I looked over your post and would have broke it down and answered it part for part, but found that one long answer would be sufficient.

 

[mgrobertson79]

Re: Opening fire on police stations and military bases

Obviously you have not followed the reports from Northern Ireland regarding attacks on police and British Army posts. Or reports from Iraq. Fanatics and other nuts just don’t care.

The people who engage in random shooting are not looking for power; they are deranged persons and the only way to keep the random nuts from killing the less crazy portion of the population is to keep the guns out of their hands in the first place. The NRA will want my head for that but it will work.
As for armed citizens opening fire on someone with a gun, can you imagine the number of innocent bystanders who will be hit by such a fusilage? Not everyone is a marksman. In the midst of such a scene, someone is certain to mistake who the real target is and the whole business will end up making VA Tech look like a Sunday walk in the park.

Matthew

This is liberal propaganda you are spouting here. There are no, none, ZERO, 0 facts to back up your comment. Gun Control is a CONTROL issue. It has NOTHING to do with your safety or the safety of Law Enforcement or anyone else.

Look at what happened in Germany in 1933 I believe when Hitler banned guns. The gestapo and SS started rounding up defenseless Jews and others they hated and put them in camps to starve and do other unmentionable acts.

This is the reason for our second amendment. It is a “reset” button for the constitution and though we have never really needed it. If gun control on a mass scale takes place, It will come to that. I don’t advocate the overthrow of a government, especially of the US, but I will not stand idly by while the constitution is stripped of all meaning my totalitarian power grabbers like Charley Shumer.

The way our government is supposed to work is the people have the power, not the politicians. If they want it otherwise, they will have to take it.

BTW, I looked over your post and would have broke it down and answered it part for part, but found that one long answer would be sufficient.

 

[mapleoak]

With all the hub-ub about the VT shootings and the gun control debate, I wonder if the press is doing a disservice to the American people by playing up the VT shootings and playing down the instances where a would-be murder is stopped by an armed citizen.

Absolutely they are doing the American people a disservice. However, I don’t believe the media has a genuine interest in the promotion of anything. They are driven by the advertising dollars that will be generated when they can get people to be glued to their television sets. Hence the seemingly disproportionate attention given to anything having a momentary shock value irregardless of the weight it carries in the big scheme of things.
For instance, today you most likely not see a headline stating that 4000 +/- innocent people were killed in their mothers womb. There is just no momentary shock associated with that even though it is a proportionately much bigger problem.

In Christ - J.M.J.
Mapleoak

 

[mary_bobo]

You have to imagine it – because despite the fact that millions of Americans have licenses to carry concealed handguns, and they use those handguns in self defense – and have for many years – you can’t find an instance in which “numbers of innocent bystanders were hit by such a fusilage.”

Amen, Vern. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. It would be nicer, however, if they knew what they were talking about.

 

[Black_Jaque]

As for armed citizens opening fire on someone with a gun, can you imagine the number of innocent bystanders who will be hit by such a fusilage? Not everyone is a marksman. In the midst of such a scene, someone is certain to mistake who the real target is and the whole business will end up making VA Tech look like a Sunday walk in the park.

So you think. But do you have any evidence to support that hypothesis?

The NRA regularly publishes articles in which law abiding citizens use firearms to ward off aggressors. So we know it IS happening on a regular basis.

Naturally you would expect the NRA to not report any such instance where an armed citizen killed and innocent by-stander. But I would certainly expect that a story like that would make headlines in a more mainstream newspaper.

The funny thing is, we rarely read/hear about innocent citizens getting killed in the crossfire by a law abiding citizen trying to save his own, or a loved one’s life.

It is so commonly a whacked out person, or two rival gangs.

 

[FightingFat]

Guns are designed to kill people.

Jesus said don’t call your brother an idiot- let alone kill him. He said if someone wants to steal from you, let him and if someone strikes you to turn the other cheek.

You’re attitude seems incredible to me!

 

[vern_humphrey]

Guns are designed to kill people.

Jesus said don’t call your brother an idiot- let alone kill him. He said if someone wants to steal from you, let him and if someone strikes you to turn the other cheek.

You’re attitude seems incredible to me!

Can you show me where Jesus said, “If a man rapes and murders your wife, stand aside and let him do the same to your daughter?”

From the Catechism:

**Legitimate defense **

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.66

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

 

[FightingFat]

Can you show me where Jesus said, “If a man rapes and murders your wife, stand aside and let him do the same to your daughter?”

I’m sorry, did I say he said that? No, I didn’t, so don’t construct an arguement to suit your cause.

From the Catechism:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful

Blowing him away would not be considered moderate IMO!

 

[vern_humphrey]

I’m sorry, did I say he said that? No, I didn’t, so don’t construct an arguement to suit your cause.

Yet you applied His teaching (which was about arguments and anger) to cases of life-threatening attacks. So once again, did Jesus say, “If a man rapes and murders your wife, stand aside and let him do the same to your daughter?”

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful

Blowing him away would not be considered moderate IMO!

Did I say, “blowing him away?” No, I didn’t, so don’t construct an arguement to suit your cause.

 

[manualman]

I’m not so sure the NRA opposes making mentally ill people ineligible to own a handgun. VT merely illustrates the fact that, with all the stupid fighting and rhetoric, the government hasn’t even properly implemented the available NON-controversial measures available.

Stupid politicians, shut up and use the tools you have before whining for more.

 

[mary_bobo]

I’m not so sure the NRA opposes making mentally ill people ineligible to own a handgun. VT merely illustrates the fact that, with all the stupid fighting and rhetoric, the government hasn’t even properly implemented the available NON-controversial measures available.

Stupid politicians, shut up and use the tools you have before whining for more.

As a life member of NRA I can tell you that they do oppose making a mentally ill person ineligible to own a handgun and they back the efforts to make reporting such people to the program that runs instant background checks. Of course the ACLU and others are opposed to this.

 

[drafdog]

Can you show me where Jesus said, “If a man rapes and murders your wife, stand aside and let him do the same to your daughter?”

Actually, the last time this happened (rape), I saw to it that the person was incarcerated. This, because it was a conviction on a “first offense,” set a legal precident in the jurisdiction.
I disuaded some of my friends from organizing “baseball bat parties” to deal with the issue.

I repeat: violence is not a solution to violence.

Matthew

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Look at what happened in Germany in 1933 I believe when Hitler banned guns. The gestapo and SS started rounding up defenseless Jews and others they hated and put them in camps to starve and do other unmentionable acts.

Talk about your propaganda…

This argument is patently false. The Nazis took power by manipulating a shabby democratic system, a ravaged economy, and a broken citezenry. Guns had already been banned by the Weimar government, yet the Nazi “Brownshirts” still managed to menace and kill those who stood in their way. By the time Hitler decreed a ban on guns, the Nazi party already had complete power over every state apparatus, and the citzenry were neither positioned nor inclined to oppose the regime, even if they had been armed.

To say that the Nazi attrocities could have been prevented if the average German had been armed is to remove any culpability for the rise of the Nazi regime from the populace.

Peace,
Dante

 

[manualman]

As a life member of NRA I can tell you that they do oppose making a mentally ill person ineligible to own a handgun and they back the efforts to make reporting such people to the program that runs instant background checks. Of course the ACLU and others are opposed to this.

I’m confused by my own grammar quoted back to me!

NRA DOES or DOES NOT believe mentally ill people should be allowed to own guns?

The ACLU opposes certain forms of gun control?

My head hurts.