Following the VT shooting, TN repeals gun control laws

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sir_Knight
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Sir_Knight

Guest
NASHVILLE - In a surprise move, a House panel voted Wednesday to repeal a state law that forbids the carrying of handguns on property and buildings owned by state, county and city governments - including parks and playgrounds.

“I think the recent Virginia disaster - or catastrophe or nightmare or whatever you want to call it - has woken up a lot of people to the need for having guns available to law-abiding citizens,” said Rep. Frank Niceley, R-Strawberry Plains. “I hope that is what this vote reflects.”

– rest of the story here.
 
The thread title is a little misleading. Tennesee hasn’t repealed the gun control law; rather, a certain bill has passed a committee in one house of Tennesee’s legislature. The “repeal” has a long way to go.

DaveBj
 
The thread title is a little misleading. Tennesee hasn’t repealed the gun control law; rather, a certain bill has passed a committee in one house of Tennesee’s legislature. The “repeal” has a long way to go.

DaveBj
It is, however, a step in the right direction.
 
How far do you think Cho would have gotten if a few of his “victoms” had been armed as well?
 
How far do you think Cho would have gotten if a few of his “victoms” had been armed as well?
As I pointed out earlier, a few days after 32 unarmed victims died at Virginia Tech – most of them young and vigorous – a former Miss American, more than 80 years old, stopped the criminals who tried to prey on her – but she had a gun.
 
One thing that needs to be pointed out here. Just because someone has a gun, and uses it for self defense doesn’t mean a shot is fired. There are cases when the perp turns tail and runs at the sight of an arm man defending him/herself. There are also cases where the person can be subdued with a lesser degree of force, even talking them out of the crime they were prepared to commit. A gun is only a tool, just like mace, or a taser, or even martial arts training and in the hands of a competent, law abiding citizen who has prepared themselves for the situation is no more dangerous than the poison that sits beneath your sink or the lawn mower in your back yard.

Only you can make the decision as to how you want to defend yourself or your family. I choose to prepare myself with multiple levels of force, to meet an aggressor where they are. I will not likely point and shoot if there is a barrier nearby, but will attempt to talk them out of the situation. If attacked, I will react as trained and have no moral issues to overcome. I wish we lived in a perfect world where this was not an issue, but we don’t. Also I take an attack with a knife the same as a gun. It depends on distance, if more than 21 feet or so I would like use the mace. If less than that deadly force would be justified do to the attack on my life and imminent death otherwise. With a gun 50’ + is the distance and mace is not an option.

I can shoot 13 rounds + into a target at 50’ each one hitting the center of the target on a law enforcement qualifying target. I rarely miss. This is the result of training and practice. If you are going to defend yourself, you need to know what you are going to do and develop the reactionary skills to do it. If you purchase a gun, go to the range regularly and take a few classes. If it is mace, a taser or something else, have a plan. Take martial arts classes to learn self defense techniques. Know when each one is appropriate and use the appropriate level of force.
 
One thing that needs to be pointed out here. Just because someone has a gun, and uses it for self defense doesn’t mean a shot is fired.
I have had to use a firearm three times as a civilian – and didn’t fire a shot. The last time was against an attacking pit bull, who seemed to understand from my body language that he was about to commit a fatal mistake.
 
I’m glad the dog got the message. I just wish people weren’t so anti-life. That is all the gun control advocates care about is that you and I do not have the ability to defend ourselves.
 
As I pointed out earlier, a few days after 32 unarmed victims died at Virginia Tech – most of them young and vigorous – a former Miss American, more than 80 years old, stopped the criminals who tried to prey on her – but she had a gun.
Go, Granny.
 
As I pointed out earlier, a few days after 32 unarmed victims died at Virginia Tech – most of them young and vigorous – a former Miss American, more than 80 years old, stopped the criminals who tried to prey on her – but she had a gun.
Not that I necessarily disagree law abiding citizens carrying guns but the 80 year old woman was not being shot at. They were stealing things from her shed. I don’t recall the news reports ever mentioning the thieves being armed.
 
Exactly the point. Without the gun, they would have taken her things and done who knows what to her. Because she was armed, none of that happened.
 
Before I had children, I was completely anti-gun. There wasn’t a single scenario that you could present to me that would make me agree that people needed to be armed. Period.

Now that I have children, instead of becoming more anti-gun (which is what I expected to happen), I’ve oddly, quietly, and mostly without me even recognizing it, become a supporter of 2nd amendment rights. How strange! The 21 year old me wouldn’t even share a meal with the 31 year old me, I guess. 😉
 
As I pointed out earlier, a few days after 32 unarmed victims died at Virginia Tech – most of them young and vigorous – a former Miss American, more than 80 years old, stopped the criminals who tried to prey on her – but she had a gun.
Is there a documented list of more cases like this? It’s my understanding that the NRA has one, but unfortunately it wouldn’t help the argument with many folks simply because it would be from the NRA.
 
Before I had children, I was completely anti-gun. There wasn’t a single scenario that you could present to me that would make me agree that people needed to be armed. Period.

Now that I have children, instead of becoming more anti-gun (which is what I expected to happen), I’ve oddly, quietly, and mostly without me even recognizing it, become a supporter of 2nd amendment rights.
It’s funny how our attitudes change when we become parents, and go through more years of our life (I’m 48, with 2 children).
The 21 year old me wouldn’t even share a meal with the 31 year old me, I guess. 😉
:yup:
I love this line! It’s probably true for me, too!
 
Is there a documented list of more cases like this? It’s my understanding that the NRA has one, but unfortunately it wouldn’t help the argument with many folks simply because it would be from the NRA.
Most NRA documents list the ORIGINAL source. No need to mention the NRA … since they are just the middle man – just mention the original source.
 
I’m glad the dog got the message. I just wish people weren’t so anti-life. That is all the gun control advocates care about is that you and I do not have the ability to defend ourselves.
To repeat an old saw, gun control isn’t about guns, it’s about control. You notice that the same people who want gun control also want to force Catholic pharmacists to dispense birth control, the morning after pill and so on. They want Catholic physiticans to be forced to perform abortions in Catholic hospitals.
 
Not that I necessarily disagree law abiding citizens carrying guns but the 80 year old woman was not being shot at. They were stealing things from her shed. I don’t recall the news reports ever mentioning the thieves being armed.
There is a legal concept called “disparity of force.” It recognizes that some people are so strong (young men, for example) that they can easily kill weaker people (80 year old women, for example) with their bare hands.

The law therefore considers an encounter between such persons one in which the weaker person is in grave danger of loss of life – just as if her opponents had guns.
 
I’m not saying she wasn’t in danger just pointing out the situation is not really comparable. If they had guns and she had a gun I’m pretty sure if she tried to shoot them she would have been the one that ended up dead. My understanding is that she shot out their tires so they couldn’t get away.
 
I’m not saying she wasn’t in danger just pointing out the situation is not really comparable. If they had guns and she had a gun I’m pretty sure if she tried to shoot them she would have been the one that ended up dead. My understanding is that she shot out their tires so they couldn’t get away.
What’s your basis for being “pretty sure?”

Are you an expert on self-defense? Do you have special experience with firearms?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top