shooting in omaha mall

[Harrison]

Expecting someone else to save you at all times is not only foolish, it's unrealistic.

[leah]

To be desensitized to the mindless crimes resulting in deaths is a moral crime in itself however deriding someone who sympathizes over it is a new low. Maybe if there were a little more sympathy for other people in general, distraught kids wouldn't shoot up malls or schools.

exactly, thank you.

[Tikker]

Expecting someone else to save you at all times is not only foolish, it's unrealistic.

you have to be doing something really wrong to need saving at all times

[Zanchief]

Expecting someone else to save you at all times is not only foolish, it's unrealistic.

Expecting a gun to save you at all times is not only foolish, it's unrealistic.

[Blackdiam]

Expecting someone else to save you at all times is not only foolish, it's unrealistic.

I have a radio scanner and one day a police dispatcher had a call from someone saying that someone was trying to break into their house the nearest cop was 45 minutes away

[10sun]

Expecting someone else to save you at all times is not only foolish, it's unrealistic.

Expecting a gun to save you at all times is not only foolish, it's unrealistic.

macgyver.jpg (101.32 KiB) Viewed 4832 times

[Evermore]

Expecting someone else to save you at all times is not only foolish, it's unrealistic.

Expecting a gun to save you at all times is not only foolish, it's unrealistic.

see the whole problem with your rather narrow minded arguement ( and i say narrow-minded because you seem to refuse to see any other side ) is that Jail is no longer a deterrrent. Hell it has become home to some of these people. they get clothed and 3 hots and medical care for free. whats to be so scared of? they dont necessarily get this out on the street.

I have an idea, chief. Let's put your money where your mouth is. Why dont you move to Camden or Phila or Detroit for a year and then lets discuss your stance on this? I would really be interested in seeing if your stance on gun control is the same after actually spending some time where these problems occur every day, instead of judging from 1000 mi away.

[Tossica]

I have an idea, chief. Let's put your money where your mouth is. Why dont you move to Camden or Phila or Detroit for a year and then lets discuss your stance on this? I would really be interested in seeing if your stance on gun control is the same after actually spending some time where these problems occur every day, instead of judging from 1000 mi away.

Oh, is that where you live?

If you live in a war zone, sure, having a gun around could be a good idea. The problem is most people that think the same way you do don't live anywhere near a place like that.

[Evermore]

Toss I work in Camden. I did live in a combat zone but got out about a year before I had my kids. I was down the block from my cousins that still live in Kensington section of Phila not too far from K and A. Anyone that knows Phila knows what this area is like its gotten much worse since i moved. The TV SHow Cops did a show in phila right up the block. it was done in the 90's so its old but the hood isnt any better, infact its worse. it's a damn shame too cause next to 9th street market area or society hill this used to be one of the nicest neighborhoods in the city.


http://www.citynoise.org/article/5653

[Evermore]

let me add this to the mix.


How can you punish someone for what they might do?

[Gypsiyee]

it isn't coincidence that other countries don't have officers that carry guns, nor do they have the need to. it's sad that theyre such a big deal over here. it's even more depressing to see a commercial on tv with a buy one get one half off gun sale and if you hurry now get a free hat.

i'm sure not a lot of people will agree with me, but to me our constitution needs to be revised. it was written in different times by different people; rights were given for much different situations. Its constantly referenced as a why we do things this way, but it's so often forgotten how different the country was then and how it no longer applies. Even in standard work practices we update documents to reflect current policy as times change, but we're hanging on to a few century old document as a means of *current life* without hesitating to question how times have changed?

We live in a dangerous country and it is self inflicted. It's not due to the government, it's not overzealous law enforcement. It's equal people of equal stance in society taking freedoms from centuries ago and using them to cause peril.

Some of these rights are no longer needed - we would not need guns for self defense if people weren't granted the right to have them just because they can in the first place.

Aside from guns used for hunting, I personally see no need for them. As it was mentioned, they serve one purpose - to kill. That's all they're meant for. We're so keen to crack down on drugs and spend tons of money on stopping that, but something that has only one violent purpose is so much more acceptable - even in the war on drugs, the drugs wouldn't be half the trouble if there weren't guns involved. The priorities are just so skewed.

[Evermore]

Some of these rights are no longer needed - we would not need guns for self defense if people weren't granted the right to have them just because they can in the first place.

the problem with this that its simply not accurate. the people that own guns and abide by the laws are not causing these issues.

Oh and Gyps even Bobbies carry guns now.

[Eziekial]

Yeah, I was going to say something but "other countries" but it's not worth arguing the point if no one listens.

All countries have some form of firearms regulation, ranging from the very strictly regulated countries like Germany, Great Britain, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore and Sweden to the less stringently controlled uses in the jurisdictions of Mexico and Switzerland, where the right to bear arms continues as a part of the national heritage up to the present time." However, "From available statistics, among (the 27) countries surveyed, it is difficult to find a correlation between the existence of strict firearms regulations and a lower incidence of gun-related crimes. . . . (I)n Canada a dramatic increase in the percentage of handguns used in all homicides was reported during a period in which handguns were most strictly regulated. And in strictly regulated Germany, gun-related crime is much higher than in countries such as Switzerland and Israel, that have simpler and/or less restrictive legislation. (Library of Congress, "Firearms Regulations in Various Foreign Countries, May 1998.")

[Zanchief]

see the whole problem with your rather narrow minded arguement ( and i say narrow-minded because you seem to refuse to see any other side ) is that Jail is no longer a deterrrent. Hell it has become home to some of these people. they get clothed and 3 hots and medical care for free. whats to be so scared of? they dont necessarily get this out on the street.

So get a taser. I taser someone and he's going to go down faster than he would if you shot him. Plus there's no chance of someone mowing down a Walmart with a taser.

win/win, unless you're narrow minded.

[Eziekial]

Zan,
A taser is not a valid substitute for a firearm. All cops that have been issued tasers still carry a firearm because there are limitations to their effectiveness. I'm not going to go throught them all, you can google the "cons" for tasers and we all know the "pro" is non-lethal force.
Weapons are an integral part of human evolution and will remain so for our lifetime. Many in the US believe that we have a right to protect ourselves, our loved ones and our property against those that will try to take them from us. That includes our government as it is simply a collection of men and women and is not infallable. Yes, there is a risk that someone can do damage with the means but that is the price for freedom. The alternative is not something many people in this country (USA) are willing to live under.

There is no "middle ground" in this right just like there is no "middle ground" in the right to assemble or the right to free speach. No one would think it was acceptable to test citizens for intelligence or knowledge of the issues before allowing them to vote or keeping a national database on citizens that have assembled lawfully to petition the government (although we are coming dangerously close to providing the means to allow this). We are constantly pushing back government that tries to infringe on the "other" rights like due process, or prohibition of cruel and unsual punishment. How many on this very forum that speak out against the warrentless wire-tapping or the "enemy combatant" label that allows confinement without bail or access to trial by jury are now trying to argue that the second amendment is irrevalent? You can't have your cake and eat it too people. If you open the door to allow a part of our constitution to be watered down then the whole document is subject to the same treatment. If not now, then perhaps the next sea change in DC. One day we may find the people have elected someone worse than all the previous presidents combined and decides to pull a Chaves and tears up the constitution that you have weakened over time.

[Zanchief]

There is no "middle ground" in this right just like there is no "middle ground" in the right to assemble or the right to free speach.

Ah, so you agree everyone should be armed. You agree that everyone should have the right to own and harmful weapon, be that Tank, Nuclear or chemical weapon. There is no middle ground after all.

The limitations of non-lethal weapons are far outweighed by the benefits in my opinion. I don't see this as an issue for the government though, I see this as an issue for people. I'm not saying the government should outlaw firearms (I do believe that though) what I'm saying is you are better off protecting your family with a taser than you are with keeping a gun around the house. That is just from a statistical point of vu.

If people really take an interest in non-lethal weapons instead of obsessing over their collection of guns, the US could actual move the industry forward and we could see some drastic improvements with what is commercially available.

[Gypsiyee]

You can't have your cake and eat it too people.

I never did care much for that saying.. who wants cake if they can't eat it? ><

[brinstar]

cake collectors

[Gypsiyee]

Oh.

[Eziekial]

There is no "middle ground" in this right just like there is no "middle ground" in the right to assemble or the right to free speach.

Ah, so you agree everyone should be armed. You agree that everyone should have the right to own and harmful weapon, be that Tank, Nuclear or chemical weapon. There is no middle ground after all.

Exactly. Not everyone will exercise their right and run out and buy an M1A1 Abrams (they aren't cheap) but at least it's not forbidden. There was a time when alcohol was illegal as are recreational drugs now in this country for fear that everyone will run out and become drunks or pot-heads just because we have the means. We now understand that just because something is available to us does not mean we must use or act on it. Will there be risk involved? Of course, but we can certainly learn to accept this like we have booze and will (hopefully soon) with casual drugs. Who knows, maybe we will find that a more armed country turns out to be safer than the one we have now.

[Tikker]

. . (I)n Canada a dramatic increase in the percentage of handguns used in all homicides was reported during a period in which handguns were most strictly regulated.

dude
there's like 1 gun related murder per year in this province

that's a dumb fucking statement, cause 1 more gun related murder is a 100% increase

that being said

guns are the problem in the states

americans are the problem

[Lueyen]

This weekend on the eve of the Omaha shooting:

http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2007-12-11T011025Z_01_N09332256_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-SHOOTING-COLORADO-COL.XML&archived=False

7000 potential victims, but the person intent on perpetrating a mass shooting was stopped short by a woman with a CWP who took it upon her self to defend those around her. When is the last time there was a mass shooting at a gun show? Why are schools and other "gun free" zones often times the places that these things occur. It's really not rocket science, gun restrictions are not followed by those who wish to commit crimes, when someone decides they want to kill a lot of people with a fire arm logic dictates they choose a place where there is a high probability of people being unarmed and unable to effectively fight back. I submit we need legislation to change all "gun free zone" signs to "fish in a barrel" at least the connotation would be a more accurate portrayal of the circumstances. Maybe the victim's familys can sue the Omaha shopping mall for false advertising.. but of course that won't bring their loved ones back.

I'm sure there were people at the mall in Omaha carrying pepper spray or tazers, of course they do little good when someone is a floor above you out of range of your non-lethal weapon.

[Arlos]

And how many kids die every year because their parents are irresponsible gun owners? Far more than are shot in malls and schools every year, I assure you...

If all gun owners were responsible, we would have a lot less of these kinds of arguments. The problem is, they aren't, by any stretch of the imagination, and there is at present no way to do anything about the situation, because the NRA has apoplectic hissy-fits any time anyone even so much as suggests requiring training classes with purchase of handguns.

-Arlos

[Harrison]

I think people should stop having sex because a lot of people are irresponsible parents.

The actions of those who aren't responsible shouldn't be dictating the RIGHTS of everyone.

I'm sorry but if your kid shoots themselves as a result of access to your gun the fucking problem is stupidity, not presence of the gun. Stop trying to make retarded connections based on emotion rather than logic.

[Arlos]

The harm irresponsible people do with hazardous objects is why we have a LOT of the laws we do. You did note that I did not in any way advocate repealing the 2nd amendment? I just feel that when you have something as immediately and potentially life threatening as a firearm, you should need to obtain SOME level of safety training with it. Possibly even pass a "home safety" certificate. (without it, own guns just fine, just store them at a range). If you're responsible, why should you balk at proving it, wnd how does it impede your right to own all the firearms you wish? Why should doing more to ensure that ALL owners are responsible be a negative? Hell, even irresponsible people could own them, they just couldn't take them to places where they'd be dangers to other people through their irresponsibility.

-Arlos