World, Writing, Wealth discussion
World & Current Events
>
Is there any way to prevent another incident like the one in Las Vegas?
date
newest »
newest »
I'm with Michel and Ian on this one. We use the ballot box to get rid of politicians we don't want. (In fact, I suspect there are a fair few who'll get the chop at the next election.)The obsession with guns, and the degree to which US gun owners/supporters go to to justify owning automatic and semi-automatic/bump stock weapons astounds me.
Apart from the gun massacres in the US, the frequency with which children shoot each other really disturbs me. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-20...
I came back here hoping to see some discussion about people wanting to own guns because they feel that things may fall apart, for whatever reason, and that they may have to defend themselves. Not against government, but because there is no government. Is this too far-fetched a notion?
Michel wrote: "J.J., you are completely in left field if you really try to compare the cases of those disappeared native women in Canada and the mass killings happening every year in the USA. First off, these dis..."I agree the point was disjointed and not made very well. Your argument is that we should ban guns because they are the tool used by the killers. My point is where does that end? England is already looking to ban knives. There is a case in the upper Midwest right now concerning a group of kids who threw a rock off an overpass and killed a motorist...do you ban rocks because they too have been used to kill? If we're banning things to prevent crime, then perhaps we should cut off all men's penises because a few have used theirs to rape women...if you're using numbers to make your distinction, how many women have been raped over the years. Does it sound crazy? Yes, But the argument has been that by banning guns, we remove temptation from those who haven't yet had a criminal history - forced castration of all men would remove the temptation from men who haven't yet committed sexual assault, and in our time we can always procreate through artificial means.
As for the Native issue, I in no way stated their was racism involved - you said that, and certainly, from the racial standpoint we in the US cannot claim moral high ground. But you yourself have said it's a problem, but what are you banning to prevent people from carrying out further incidents since we're banning the tools? Or is it that these communities have such high rates of domestic violence and alcohol abuse leading to many of these deaths that the whole issue is quietly accepted because it addresses those root problems? After all, you can't beat your wife if you're dead.
That's the same attitude we have when it comes to African Americans in this country - we racially profile them when it comes to policing, we thrown them in jail for all kinds of stupid sh*t, and we allow law enforcement to act as executioner in some cases because after all "they're just going to rob and kill someone later." It's wrong. But end of the day, it's the same attitude - we proactively jail them for something they "might" do just as bans act on what "might" happen.
Ultimately bans are nothing but a cheap, feel-good measure. Sure you ban guns, but that absolves you from tackling the real issues, the tough issues. No need to address mental illness any more because you've banned guns so they can't act on their madness. No need to address poverty and give people a reason not to use that gun for evil in the first place.
The reason for bringing up seemingly crazy and seemingly unrelated scenarios is because in the next generation they may not seem so crazy. After all, a generation ago, who would have accepted the notion of gay marriage as anything but crazy. My overarching point has not been to rile feathers, though that seems to be what I have done, but to explain the US point of view. Our Founding Father encapsulated these ideas in the Constitution because they knew eventually people would be willing to give up the freedoms they fought for in the name of safety. I get that you and other non-US individuals feel differently, and end of the day, I'm not arguing that you should adopt our way. But I get the feeling that it's not about understanding why we do what we do, but rather you're more interested in bashing the US. In that case, I never will get you to see our side, and you can go on thinking I'm just Canada bashing or whatever - I'm certainly sorry if that's the view I've given off.
But to an earlier question, yes, these kinds of incidents are worth the price of our freedoms. It might seem cold, but there is no 100% safety when it comes to any of those freedoms. Somebody is always going to get hurt when you allow people to have a measure of free will. You either have to accept that, or admit you want an oppresive system that doesn't give people any choice or any freedom, because when you start restricting freedoms for seemingly reasonable reasons, you start on a slope toward oppression.
Scout wrote: "I came back here hoping to see some discussion about people wanting to own guns because they feel that things may fall apart, for whatever reason, and that they may have to defend themselves. ..."Happened in the past, may happen in the future. The dystopian genre is more popular than Utopian for a reason -:)
J.J. wrote: "Ultimately bans are nothing but a cheap, feel-good measure. Sure you ban guns, but that absolves you from tackling the real issues, the tough issues..."As far as I know guns owned privately is not unique for the States and there are other countries too that allow purchase of firearms.
My impression - most comments here advocate for limiting of automatic and semi-automatic, as they are capable of inflicting much more harm and maybe stricter control or profiling of those desiring to purchase.
Not sure the concept of people's safety should be inferior to individual rights..
After all - cars, medications, etc - all pass some procedures to ensure their safety.
Airport checks also limit and infringe personal freedoms, but are deemed necessary and so on..
There are ways of banning guns. Thus in the old west Wyatt Earp banned guns within the city limits and things were a lot more peaceful because of it (and of course he shot the disobedient, more or less on sight so there was enforcement that everyone knew about.) Also, there is a difference between banning the existence of guns, and banning things like bump stocks or machine guns.The argument against oppression is interesting. To the best of my knowledge, while there are a lot of gun in New Zealand, I am unaware that anyone has them to not feel oppressed. The usual reasons are hunting, pest control, or protecting sheep, etc, and there is also recreational sport. I am not against guns, and I have used them, but someone hunting does not need a machine gun. I am all for banning the military style weapons in civilian hands because their only use is for killing people. But I think there is also an attitude here. I detect the American advocates for more guns are really a little afraid, and it is unfortunate that life there has deteriorated that much.
Nik wrote: "J.J. wrote: "Ultimately bans are nothing but a cheap, feel-good measure. Sure you ban guns, but that absolves you from tackling the real issues, the tough issues..."As far as I know guns owned pr..."
And the examples you bring up have run through my mind throughout this discussion, and they mildly disturb me to some extent as well. It's not so much the access issue as it is the underlying treatment of responsible citizens, and the cavalier attitudes a seemingly free people have toward those restrictions. Before I go on another unintentionally long and unintended rant on it, let me preface by saying we do not have a Constitutional right to cold medicine or air travel, etc., so the government is freer with restrictions and it's easier to get people to accept them.
But take over-the-counter cold medicine for example. Does the government really expect us to believe an overwhelming majority of purchases are going to meth production? Do they really believe illicit use is anything more than a blip on the radar? I'm willing to accept it might be; maybe the numbers are there. But if these products are as dangerous as we're led to believe, then instead of playing this game, just change their status and make them available through prescription-only.
Speaking of the TSA, it always boggled my mind how many people accepted the whole pat-down thing right after 9/11 as a trade-off for safety. As intrusive as they were, it arguably bordered on sexual violation. Maybe it's me, but I couldn't imagine having a stranger handling my privates and gladly accepting as a "safety measure." I think they've backed off from that in recent years, but I was honestly surprised more people didn't have a problem back then.
Ian wrote: "I detect the American advocates for more guns are really a little afraid, and it is unfortunate that life there has deteriorated that much. ..."The idea of fear has also been something in the back of mind throughout this discussion, and I don't think there really is a culture of fear in this country in relation to gun ownership. I know I'm defending our 2nd Amendment vigorously, but in reality, I don't own a gun and have no intention of buying one. Even with the prevalence of mass shootings and nightly reports of violent crimes, it never really enters my mind that it's dangerous to "walk down the street." There is just no sense that the next shooter might come into the restaurant I'm eating at or the movie theater I'm visiting. Just last year, I enter a bathroom at the mall right after a security guard left it, and there was what might be considered a "suspicious package" left in the bathroom. Apparently the security guard wasn't worried at all about it, and I almost left without caring, but I did get thinking. In my mind, I was sure it wasn't nefarious, but the nagging voice told me to be sure. Yet instead of sounding an alarm and triggering a lockdown, I simply opened it and looked inside. That's how unafraid I am and how unusual these incidents actually are despite the media attention.
Same mall, different trip and the fire alarm goes off. Security is only half-assedly getting people to leave while the customers are continuing to walk about and try to shop, not believing anything is actually wrong. I encounter that sort of thing elsewhere once in a great while. Despite the gun culture, there is a general disconnect between these incidents you see on TV and the reality that it might happen in our own lives. We're just not scared. Even more, we occasionally see stories of customers tackling gunmen and robbers who try to hold up a bank or a convenience store, and strangely enough the "good Samaritan" never has a gun. A story was on the local news just the other night of a man who tackled a would-be bank robber. The robber had a gun and was flashing it, and despite corporate policies telling employees to comply, a regular citizen risked his life to thwart the attempt.
J J s first comment above is interesting because it is an example of the government restricting everybody because of a few miscreants. I hear Trump is going to restrict certain pain medicines because they contain opiods, and the same is happening in this country. There are some who acquire pain killers for very good reasons, but keep taking them and become addicted. Codeine containing cold relief works, but rather reluctantly governments have come to realize that the many have to be restricted because of the abuse by the minority. I am glad I was wrong about the fear factor. It was just that the excuses some were making for having such a preponderance of guns made me wonder.
If you want to transition to the opiod issue, I used to agree that it was an overblown issue concerning a few people who abused their pain meds, then coulnd't handle addiction. ie, why should I care because a few "junkies" kill themselves. But as it gets more exposure, we're seeing a lot of different angles to it. Drug companies are basically bribing doctors to prescribe medication people don't need or higher doses than they need. Then you have those doctors who are supposed to be concerned with their patients' health, prescribing those drugs and acting like they didn't know the dangers - that one goes beyond the opiod issue, because what are we supposed to do as a society if we can't trust doctors at all? And then there are revised numbers coming in in the last couple days placing the death toll at around 60,000 in the US last year alone. That is mind-boggling.But where it relates to the gun issue, is how do you go about tackling it. Medications are already restricted by prescription, and illegal drugs like heroin are, well, already illegal. Theoretically, we already have the legal frameworks in place so this should not have become such a crisis. We already have the necessary bans/regulations, so...what? Do we blame the drug companies like States are doing with recent lawsuits, ignoring the role of the doctors and the failure of regulators? Or do we take a harder stand and hold doctors accountable, and the FDA for being asleep at the wheel? Not to mention, this blame game does nothing for getting to get much of this country off the addiction. Like with our gun laws, there is no solution involving increased bans - we simply have to be serious about enforcing the laws and regulations already on the book, and we have to accept that it's not an easy problem to get out from under.
To return to the main subject of the discussion, gun control, how about doing at least one thing that should not be contentious: banning completely the manufacture and sale of those 'bump stocks'? They certainly aren't made for hunting and, as for 'personal home protection', do you really want some neighbor to 'defend himself' by spraying uncontroled bursts of automatic fire through the walls of his house or through the neighborhood? Bump stocks are gimmicks solely made to give some stupid thrills to a few wannabe Rambos on the shooting range...or to commit mass murders on American streets. I can't see one single valid reason to allow bump stocks to be available legally, or at all.
I also see no reason not to ban the military style weapon in the hands of civilians. I know they are nominally "restricted" to shooting ranges etc, but they are still there for the idiots. I saw a TV documentary that included one such shooting range somewhere out the west US (but east of the Rockies) where all and sundry were shooting of automatic weapons, and someone turned up with a 50 cal machine gun mounted on the back of a truck. That is really seriously destructive, so what the hell is a civilian doing with that? Similarly, ban bump stocks, and enforce the ban. Ban the automatic assault rifle. Anyone needing an AK to go hunting is missing the point, and likely to kill other hunters in wild uncontrolled spray because the idiot saw something moving. At least if they have one shot, they are more likely to properly identify their target.
Ian wrote: "Anyone needing an AK to go hunting is missing the point, and likely to kill other hunters in wild uncontrolled spray because the idiot saw something moving...."But they say in the States the right to bear arms is not for hunting!
As I understand it was designed to prevent usurpation - a problem very actual for emerging nations like the States were when founding fathers thought of it..
Out of 15 republics of former USSR, that went independent, for example, I guess about half of them are ruled by the same rulers/dynasties for many long years.. Anti-usurpation tools might be handy in some of those places -:)
It does look disproportional though to have those safety belts and airbags to minimize casualties in car crashes, anti-smoking campaigns and measures, but much fewer of those regarding semi-automatic weapons..
Since we've been talking about the 2nd Amendment, it would be reasonable to state it here:A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
(The Bill of Rights: The Fight to Secure America's Liberties , p.145 (I started reading it. It tells the story of how the Bill of Rights was developed. "The Bill of Rights was actually a brilliant political act executed by James Madison to preserve the Constitution, the federal government, and the latter's authority over the states." (jacket cover))
Alex wrote: "Since we've been talking about the 2nd Amendment, it would be reasonable to state it here:A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep ..."Although I haven't read the US constitution, that phrase refers to a militia. And a well regulated one at that. Clearly a militia is raised from the civilian population, and that civilian population usually has some form of training, which implies competence and discipline.
(I assume our Army Reservists would form the pool here, now,)
Clearly the situation currently in the US, bears little or no resemblance to a militia. It appears to be every person in favour of no gun control - using only the last phrase as their mantra.
The political situation now and when that was written are also clearly very different. Not to mention the type of armament available to the general populace.
Michel wrote: "To return to the main subject of the discussion, gun control, how about doing at least one thing that should not be contentious: banning completely the manufacture and sale of those 'bump stocks'? ..."Where the 2nd Amendment only covers weapons and not accessories, I think that is why even the NRA has said they would support a ban on the stocks.
But one news report I've seen since indicated that these devices are intended in part as an aid to handicap individuals. Trying to do a quick search right now to confirm it and honestly, it sounds like a cheap excuse to justify them, but apparently it's out there anyway. That may present a problem if such a ban goes through and someone challenges it in court.
From the 14th Amendment:
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
A potential legal argument could be made that these devices handicap individuals access to 2nd Amendment rights they otherwise wouldn't have. By banning the "aids," the government might, in effect, be shutting off certain individuals from their right to bear arms, violating the 14th Amendment. I would imagine they'd have to prove the device does what they claim, and typically cases can only be brought by someone affected (ie. I couldn't file a suit based on a hypothetical) - I don't know if we have many handicap individuals using these stocks to enjoy gun ownership who otherwise couldn't.
Leonie wrote: "Alex wrote: "Since we've been talking about the 2nd Amendment, it would be reasonable to state it here:A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the pe..."We do have groups of individuals in this country forming their own "militias." We can argue over what they're intentions are, and certainly some of them have engaged in activity that falls outside the realm of prep, but there is a fact that we have people forming "militias" outside the control of the federal government.
Or what about the Black Panthers. I have to admit I grow increasingly sympathetic to what they were trying to do as time goes. These were people who armed themselves against the racial violence of the past, and they still exist to some degree today. I know I oversimplify it, but this was a group that armed itself for defense against police killings and brutality - a group that felt they had to fight for equal treatment that should have been guaranteed under the Constitution.
Nik wrote: "Ian wrote: "It does look disproportional though to have those safety belts and airbags to minimize casualties in car crashes, anti-smoking campaigns and measures, but much fewer of those regarding semi-automatic weapons....."
And we do have people that disagree with seatbelt laws and helmet laws for motorcyclists. Just more of that argument about the government regulating behavior and removing freedom of choice, personal responsibility and all that.
But here's an example where action under the guise of "safety" is disjointed. Over a decade ago, the FDA banned the sale of ephedra, an OTC substance used in dietary aids. It became high profile after a baseball player's death was attributed to the stuff. Looking for figures now, and here's Reuters with a story giving the number of deaths at a peak of 7 - yes, not 70 or 700 or 7000 - in 2004.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-fd...
"There had been five, three and six the previous years."
At the time, there was the counter argument that aspirin causes far more deaths, but the government isn't looking to ban that. Looking for figures, it's a bit difficult to wade through them because sites seem to lump aspirin in with the broader NSAID category which includes some prescription medications, but I just came across this one from 2009:
https://www.wddty.com/magazine/2009/a...
"The Ameri-can Association of Poison Control Centers receives reports of just 59 aspirin deaths in the US each year, while researchers put the mortal-ity rate for all painkilling, non-steroidal, anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) such as aspirin, ibuprofen and naproxen at around 7600 deaths a year (Scand J Rheum Suppl, 1992; 92: 21-4)."
Apparently a more recent study out of the UK places the death toll above 3000 in that country alone.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/...
The argument in favor of aspirin centers around the benefits - how it reduces risk of heart attack, etc., but one could make the same argument for an aid that helps people to lose weight. So the overarching argument, is why ban one and not the other instead of alerting people to the risks and letting them make their own decisions and accept the consequences - especially if we live in a so-called free society.
I am not sure I am getting this right, but are some saying that we can't ban guns because enforcing things like seatbelt wearing denies people their rights? What seems to have been forgotten there is that while you can argue such people know the risks and should pay the price if things go wrong, they are not the only ones involved. I don't know how many off you have gone put to help scrape the injured off the road or vehicle, or try to keep someone alive until some hospital has to somehow put them together again. Personally, I am in favour of taking simple precautions to save these people, and for that matter, the expense of putting these clowns back to life. Why should we pay for their refusal to do something reasonably straightforward?However, I agree that the banning of something like aspirin is silly. Yes, there will be some unfortunate side effects occasionally, although usually again through excess of stupidity. I agree with J.J. that banning a weight reduction aid because a baseball player died of it is ridiculous. What else was the baseball player taking, how much did he take, and was he following the instructions? Actually any pharmaceutical can cause harm, especially amongst a few that have allergies, so care has to be taken, but that is no reason to ban them. Advice should be available, though.
Ian wrote: "I am not sure I am getting this right, but are some saying that we can't ban guns because enforcing things like seatbelt wearing denies people their rights? What seems to have been forgotten there ..."No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm putting the gun control issue into a broader issue involving the so-called Nanny State. I don't think anyone is saying governments shouldn't put some controls on behavior when their truly eggregious or when there is an overwhelming public safety issue. IE, despite our 1st Amendment protections, we cannot shout "fire" in a crowded movie theater, just as we have laws banning criminals from owning guns.
What I am trying to do is ask several questions around that larger issue. 1) Where does it end? At what point do we stop treating law-abiding citizens like toddlers and expect they can take responsibility for their actions? I know it's difficult to see our society today and extrapolate where it might go in the future, but some of the crazier scenarios are not so crazy if you go out on a long enough timeline. The joke about wrapping our children in bubble wrap whenever they go outside could very well become a serious thing in another generation or two.
2) If we force ourselves to draw that line, then where do we draw it? Do we quantify human life and tell ourselves something is not a problem until X number of people die? That if only X-1 people die, we're not yet ready to step in? Corporations already do this when considering produc recalls - they weight the cost of the recall against the cost of settlements from potential lawsuits and the public relations fallout that comes from not issuing the recall.
3) When we draw that line, how do we then justify not acting when it's crossed, or acting before it's crossed when we didn't act in other scenarios? This will be another unrelated scenario, but consider how we look at geneocides around the world...we said after WWII that we would not let it happen - "Never again." So how do we justify sitting back and waiting until 200k died in Rwanda? At what point does the current situation in Myanmar warrant our attention? That's not to say we have to get involved each and every time - as long as we establish the policy, I'm just saying our stated policy is to never let it happen, but we keep allowing it to happen.
As far as the basic issue of gun control goes, there's two ways to approach the issue as I've been trying to point out. If the question is how to go about it in general, then it depends on the individual country. What you do in Great Britain and Australia and Canada is up to you. But when it comes to the US, gun ownership is one of those things enshrined in our Constitution. Sure, we can discuss wether it's right or not, if it's time to amend the Constitution or not, etc. One of the things that's underlied my argument is that reality. No matter what anyone thinks we should or shouldn't do, our Constitution presents a reality that cannot be ignored and simply legislated away. The government has tried several measures in our brief history to address public safety, and not all of them have been overturned as unconstitutional. Many have though, and that gives us some guidance on what we can or can't do.
Another thing I've tried to do is put the 2nd Amendment and its importance into a historical perspective. I understand most of you are from other countries, and I get you don't neccessarily share the same background of political struggle as we do. Frankly, our country has been divided politically since before the Revolution, and coupled with the vast numbers of immigrants we've welcomed in the last two hundred+ years, a lot of Americans don't understand it or think it's time to put it in the past. But as part of my point, that is why our Founding Fathers wanted to enshrine certain principles into the Constitution - so that we woulnd't grow complacent and feel as though we no longer need the rights and privledges they fought to secure.
Where you stop governments intervening is obviously a difficult question, and I suppose it is fair enough to argue that non-Americans should butt out of US affairs. Having said that I should shut up, but I probably won't. 😄 As a general rule, my thinking is such government intervention should look at what are the benefits of doing something, and what are the prices to personal freedom. I don't think I have ever said guns should be banned, but I cannot see any personal benefit in bump stocks or machine guns to civilians, and as seen in Las Vegas, the cost is high. Similarly, we all accept you should have a licence to drive a car, so you don't go killing someone. I see no reason not to have some competency and sanity test for gun ownership.
The nanny state problem has shown up here too, and one political party lost a number of elections thanks to the label attached to somewhat too active involvement. However, I also know that when I was very young, children were more or less left to their own devices, and now parents feel they have to be more interventionist. I know that then, crime was very much rarer than now (at least here). Times do change. Also, while the US Constitution was quite a remarkable document for its time, I think there are sometimes reasons to ask whether times have changed enough to take a look at some parts of it.
J.J. wrote: "What I am trying to do is ask several questions around that larger issue. 1) Where does it end? At what point do we stop treating law-abiding citizens like toddlers and expect they can take responsibility for their actions?..."I'm not sure a government should be necessarily about limiting personal liberties and freedoms, but more to promote common interests. If the citizens are armed, why to spend billions/trillions of USD/pounds/euros on army or retaining a police force? It's assumed they act to provide for common interest of safety and protection.
To find the fine line between individual freedoms and common interest is not always easy.
It seems in general whenever it's only about individual risk the intervention should be minimal. After all, in some places people are allowed to participate in experimental medical treatments, undertaking full risks and dangers. And other individually hazardous activities are also allowed. It's when it becomes nuisance or worse - dangerous to the public, the individual often retreats in favor of collective. Don't know how it is in the States, but in some countries you can't play music loud after certain hours lest the neighbors will call the police, for example.
In the context of guns in the States, especially since it's a constitutional right, it should be respected. It might be reasonable in my opinion that the more dangerous the weapons, the more dominant public safety interest shall become.
However, I ask how, for example, in a country cherishing personal freedoms and liberties, one need to hide a beer in a paper bag, if s/he wants to drink it at the street, while in many other countries one can just drink it as it is without the need to hide it, or why loitering (a very basic right to be wherever one wants), should be viewed as offense somewhere?
The police force can't protect you. They can only respond when you call, and it's often after the damage is done. Do you want to be hiding in a closet with or without a gun?
Actually, for most people evasion is probably the best technique. If you are not all that competent with a gun, it will only get you killed.
For those who say that guns are needed for self-defence against criminals, then an assault rifle is the wrong choice anyway. Assault rifle bullets are high velocity projectiles that will easily penetrate multiple wood/plaster walls and could ricochet around if it hits a metal object, like a pipe or a nail, putting your loved ones at risk. Also, unless you are a trained soldier, firing on full automatic mode will make most gun owners fire wildly around, spraying your neighborhood. A much better home defence weapon would be a shotgun: easy to aim and no overpenetration, unless you use heavy slugs. All this is to say that owning a fully automatic rifle is often a bad choice, unless you intend to do some mass killings.
Yes, you also need to consider that you or the criminals are not the only ones in danger and unless you know what you are doing and are in complete control, you may well be more a hazard to your family than the crims.
Scout wrote: "The police force can't protect you. They can only respond when you call, and it's often after the damage is done. Do you want to be hiding in a closet with or without a gun?"By getting criminals off the streets, should be protective
I'd say getting criminals off the streets is preventive. In a specific incident like a home invasion, they can't protect you. You're on your own.BRYAN COUNTY, Oklahoma - A 12-year-old girl took matters into her own hands during a home invasion in southeast Oklahoma.
It happened on Wednesday when the girl was home alone. She told police a stranger rang the doorbell, then went around to the back door and kicked it in. She called her mom, Debra St. Clair, who told her to get the family gun, hide in a closet and call 911.
That was when St. Clair dropped what she was doing and raced home.
"I drove home at a really fast pace to try to get to her, and when I got here the police were already here. And they had the suspect," she said.
During that time, the intruder made his way through the house. St. Clair's daughter told deputies the man came into the room where she was hiding and began to open up the closet door. That was when the 12 year old had to make a life-saving decision.
"And what we understand right now, he was turning the doorknob when she fired through the door," said the Bryan County Undersheriff Ken Golden.
The bullet hit the intruder, who deputies identified as 32-year-old Stacey Jones. He took off but did not get far before officers took him down.
"He was sitting down, the policemen had him apprehended at the end of the block. All I saw was some blood coming down his back. I'm not exactly sure where his injury was, but I saw some blood there," explained St. Clair.
Jones was taken to a Texas hospital by helicopter after the incident. An investigator on the case said Jones was released from the hospital Thursday and extradited to the Bryan County Jail.
The 12-year-old girl was not injured during the ordeal.
Ian wrote: "and I suppose it is fair enough to argue that non-Americans should butt out of US affairs. Having said that I should shut u..."I would argue it's entirely fair to discuss affairs of other countries. As I've said, we've all got different ways of doing things and it does our own country a disservice if we don't at least look at how others tackle issues and and hold the debate as to whether or not it's right for us. As well, we all have the habit of criticizing others because they do things differently, and in the spirit of open debate there's nothing wrong with trying to get someone else to see your point of view. I think where it goes too far is expecting someone else to do things our way and ignoring why they do things differently. I know this is funny coming from a country that "encourages" regime change, but even for the US, we seem to establish new governments that look more like European style parliamentary style systems than something mirroring our own. Certainly we have reasons for the Republic style system we use, but there must be some merit in the system some of your nations use, or we wouldn't be pushing it on others.
And don't shut up. I know I get heated in some of these debates, but there is something refreshing discussing heated topics with people who aren't necessarily locked into their own ideas, people who listen and discuss, and those who present a range of ideas without trying to silence the other side.
Scout wrote: ""And what we understand right now, he was turning the doorknob when she fired through the door," said the Bryan County Undersheriff Ken Golden.The bullet hit the intruder, who deputies identified as 32-year-old Stacey Jones. He took off but did not get far before officers took him down.
"He was sitting down, the policemen had him apprehended at the end of the block. All I saw was some blood coming down his back. I'm not exactly sure where his injury was, but I saw some blood there," explained St. Clair."
Obviously, that wasn't an automatic.
Michel wrote: "For those who say that guns are needed for self-defence against criminals, then an assault rifle is the wrong choice anyway. Assault rifle bullets are high velocity projectiles that will easily pen..."
How about a handgun and/or a shotgun?
A handgun can also be a good choice for home defence, but handguns need quite a lot of practice to be truly proficient with, so that you don't kill a family member by accident. A shotgun is easier to point and, its pellets spreading into a tight cone, you have a bigger chance to hit your intended target. If you use a handgun and you are not a practiced shooter, then I recommend a double action revolver: no safeties to worry about and it won't fire unless you very deliberately pull the trigger. A revolver is much simpler to use than a semi-automatic pistol and, for home defence, you don't need that many shots anyway, so six shots should be more than enough.
I myself owned guns decades ago and I like to fire them, but I got rid of them when I got kids in the house. This is to say that I don't hate guns and know them well (I was for a time a foreign weapons instructor in the Canadian Forces), but that there should be some common sense limitations put on their ownership and use, for the common good of all. Bump stocks definitely don't make common sense for anything but planning mass murders, thus should be banned.
I myself owned guns decades ago and I like to fire them, but I got rid of them when I got kids in the house. This is to say that I don't hate guns and know them well (I was for a time a foreign weapons instructor in the Canadian Forces), but that there should be some common sense limitations put on their ownership and use, for the common good of all. Bump stocks definitely don't make common sense for anything but planning mass murders, thus should be banned.
There are a few additional issues. My father was a rural policeman, and had to do a certain amount of pistol practice, and while ferreting around in the back of his office, I found a Victoria era .45 cal revolver, so I was permitted to go and use up the ammo. The first thing to note is the revolver with a longer barrel than the then standard issue 9mm auto was apparently more accurate at a distance. It is easy to fire, as Michel pointed out, the revolver is probably a lot safer than an auto, at least for those not properly trained, and it has more stopping power, which its important.My feeling, though, is if you are going to own a gun like that, you should be shown how to use and maintain it by someone who knows, and you MUST exercise control. The problem in a home invasion situation, as I see it, is that if you panic or don't really control yourself, you are more likely to be a bigger problem for yourself and family with a gun than without one.
People need a lot of education, serious counselling. The mindset of the masses need to be fixed, be it one or many. It's all a madness that people take such liberties with weapons and feel that they have some kind of a God gifted right (ISIS and so on) to go around killing innocent people. Is it even possible to weed out hatred?
Mehreen, if we ever manage to do that, then Humanity will have entered its golden age. However, I am not holding my breath.
Michel wrote: "Mehreen, if we ever manage to do that, then Humanity will have entered its golden age. However, I am not holding my breath."True, neither am I.
At the beginning of this discussion, I said that bump stocks should be made illegal because they turn an assault weapon into an automatic weapon similar to a machine gun, which is already illegal. I can't say that assault weapons should be illegal because they can also be used for defense, if it becomes necessary.
In terms of prevention, the authorities could get things together better. Had the USAF bothered to pass on the information on that latest Texas shooter, it would have been illegal for him to have a gun, apparently, and better still, he could have got psychiatric help. That would have saved a lot of lives.
Ian wrote: "In terms of prevention, the authorities could get things together better. Had the USAF bothered to pass on the information on that latest Texas shooter, it would have been illegal for him to have a..."This falls in the category of "we don't need more laws, we need to enforce the ones we have." Not sure if they were required by law to report these kinds of incidents outside of the military, but cooperation among government entities should be solid before a government expects cooperation among citizens. But never mind the military, reports indicate he had problems after his discharge, so...what the hell???
As for tyrannical governments, I think most of us have seen politicians doing all sorts of things we disapprove of, and if we get sufficiently agitated we vote them to go t the unemployment line (not that they actually get unemployed). Where I live, we don't see the need to have a gun to be free, and I cannot see that any civilized society needs military style weapons amongst its civilians. They are only thereto kill the maximum number of people in the shortest possible time, or to maximise the chances of killing people who have cover. Yes, I can see the military needs them, but you and I do not.