guns

[texan]

Go back to England and make your own rules........

Like the one where all the police and people in England where not allowed guns?

2010 facts:

In 1997, Britain passed a law requiring civilians to surrender almost all privately owned handguns to the police.

More than 162,000 handguns and 1.5 million pounds of ammunition were "compulsorily surrendered" by February 1998.

Since then, the homicide rate in England and Wales has averaged 52% higher since the outset of the 1968 gun control law and 15% higher since the outset of the 1997 handgun ban?

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

 

[texan]

Another immediate result of British gun ban:

UK is violent crime capital of Europe - Telegraph

 

[Johney]

 

[Babagounj]

Chicago Ends Gun Registry, Eliminates City Gun Permit Requirement http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...gistry-Eliminates-City-Gun-Permit-Requirement

 

[soberups]

In Iowa blind people can get guns. WHY I have no idea,but they can.

1. Because it is their constitutional right under the Second Amendment

2. The legal definition of "blind" encompasses a broad range of visual impairments. Many "blind" people can still watch TV to a certain extent or even read large-type books using a magnifier, they just cant drive a car or walk without the aid of a cane or dog.

3. Blind people have just as much of a right to self defense as sighted people, as well as an arguably greater need for some sort of equalizer against a violent criminal.

4. If a 110 lb. blind woman is on her back and being assaulted by a 250 lb sighted man who is choking her out with both hands around her neck, target identification really isnt an issue at that point and she doesnt need good eyesight in order to successfully empty a .357 magnum into his chest/guts/balls.

5. Blind people (at least in my state) are legally allowed to hunt, and can use the assistance of a sighted person to spot the game and aim and fire their gun for them if necessary. Blind people like to eat venison and elk meat too, and should not be denied the same opportunities as a sighted person to fill a tag. Its a lot easier to fill a tag when you own a rifle.


I can think of plenty more reasons, but ultimately it boils down to whether or not blind people should be legally classified as second-class citizens. I vote "no".

 

[728ups]

1. Because it is their constitutional right under the Second Amendment

2. The legal definition of "blind" encompasses a broad range of visual impairments. Many "blind" people can still watch TV to a certain extent or even read large-type books using a magnifier, they just cant drive a car or walk without the aid of a cane or dog.

3. Blind people have just as much of a right to self defense as sighted people, as well as an arguably greater need for some sort of equalizer against a violent criminal.

4. If a 110 lb. blind woman is on her back and being assaulted by a 250 lb sighted man who is choking her out with both hands around her neck, target identification really isnt an issue at that point and she doesnt need good eyesight in order to successfully empty a .357 magnum into his chest/guts/balls.

5. Blind people (at least in my state) are legally allowed to hunt, and can use the assistance of a sighted person to spot the game and aim and fire their gun for them if necessary. Blind people like to eat venison and elk meat too, and should not be denied the same opportunities as a sighted person to fill a tag. Its a lot easier to fill a tag when you own a rifle.


I can think of plenty more reasons, but ultimately it boils down to whether or not blind people should be legally classified as second-class citizens. I vote "no".

no offense,but blind people running around with guns sounds very much like a skit from Monty Python or Bennie Hill,an unfunny skit at that!
IMO to enjoy the right to carry guns the individual should be able to properly demonstrate they can actually SAFELY use the weapon.If one is blind and cant hit a target with a gun it dosent mean he is a 'second class citizen' it just shows arming the blind may not really be the best of all judgements.
You may say it's thier right to carry,but I feel I'm within my rights to go in public and not have to worry about a blind person carrying heat. and in Iowa someone who is COMPLETELY blind can get a gun.I simply can't see how anyone cannot grasp the absolute absurdity of this

 

[soberups]

no offense,but blind people running around with guns sounds very much like a skit from Monty Python or Bennie Hill,an unfunny skit at that!
IMO to enjoy the right to carry guns the individual should be able to properly demonstrate they can actually SAFELY use the weapon.If one is blind and cant hit a target with a gun it dosent mean he is a 'second class citizen' it just shows arming the blind may not really be the best of all judgements.
You may say it's thier right to carry,but I feel I'm within my rights to go in public and not have to worry about a blind person carrying heat. and in Iowa someone who is COMPLETELY blind can get a gun.I simply can't see how anyone cannot grasp the absolute absurdity of this

So by your "logic", I guess we shouldnt even allow blind people to walk around in public since they might run out into the middle of the road and cause a fatal car wreck.

I disagree. Blind/visually impaired people are just as capable as anyone else of making safe decisions regarding where to walk or how to use a firearm. They must simply adapt to and work within their limitations. Your automatic assumption that visually impaired people would use a carry permit as an excuse to randomly spray bullets in all directions is a ridiculous one. In the majority of cases, the mere display of a weapon is all that it takes to end a potentially violent encounter, and there is no valid reason for denying law-abiding visually impaired citizens the right to armed self-defense.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

no offense,but blind people running around with guns sounds very much like a skit from Monty Python or Bennie Hill,an unfunny skit at that!
IMO to enjoy the right to carry guns the individual should be able to properly demonstrate they can actually SAFELY use the weapon.If one is blind and cant hit a target with a gun it dosent mean he is a 'second class citizen' it just shows arming the blind may not really be the best of all judgements.
You may say it's thier right to carry,but I feel I'm within my rights to go in public and not have to worry about a blind person carrying heat. and in Iowa someone who is COMPLETELY blind can get a gun.I simply can't see how anyone cannot grasp the absolute absurdity of this

I mostly agree. Personally I think in order to carry a gun in public, you should have to pass a safety class and a shooting test. The required class here is 8 hours (I did two 4 hour classes after work on weekdays) and included a written and shooting test. The target for the test is huge, if you can't hit it then you have no business carrying a gun in public, whether you are blind or just can't shoot for crap. I'd even have no problem with putting some kind of auditory indicator by the target, if a blind person can hit it, more power to them.

I do however have a problem that the class cost $100 and the permit to carry cost another $115. That was a lot of money for me at the time. IMO the cost to obtain the permit was more discriminatory against poor people than the shooting test was against blind people.

 

[moreluck]

Texas Man’s Pregnant Wife Never Wanted to Have a Gun in the House – But Now She’s Sure Glad He Insisted | TheBlaze.com

 

[728ups]

So by your "logic", I guess we shouldnt even allow blind people to walk around in public since they might run out into the middle of the road and cause a fatal car wreck.

I disagree. Blind/visually impaired people are just as capable as anyone else of making safe decisions regarding where to walk or how to use a firearm. They must simply adapt to and work within their limitations. Your automatic assumption that visually impaired people would use a carry permit as an excuse to randomly spray bullets in all directions is a ridiculous one. In the majority of cases, the mere display of a weapon is all that it takes to end a potentially violent encounter, and there is no valid reason for denying law-abiding visually impaired citizens the right to armed self-defense.

Please dont put words in my mouth or try to make apples/oranges comparisons. You DO have an excellent flair for drama but that dosent change the fact that the Blind shouldn't drive cars,own guns,operate wrecking balls,defuse bombs..............see where I am going with this? it's just plain COMMON SENSE. It's not discrimination,making the Blind 'second class citizens' or any other dramatic non sense.

 

[soberups]

Please dont put words in my mouth or try to make apples/oranges comparisons. You DO have an excellent flair for drama but that dosent change the fact that the Blind shouldn't drive cars,own guns,operate wrecking balls,defuse bombs..............see where I am going with this? it's just plain COMMON SENSE. It's not discrimination,making the Blind 'second class citizens' or any other dramatic non sense.

Owning a gun is a constitutional right.

Driving cars, operating wrecking balls and defusing bombs are NOT constitutional rights.

I have a real problem with the idea that our government should be allowed to arbitrarily deny a fundamental constitutional right to an individual simply because that individual has a disability.

 

[Babagounj]

Unarmed man, possibly looking for help after wreck, shot by police
Unarmed man, possibly looking for help after wreck, shot by police - CBS News

 

[soberups]

Unarmed man, possibly looking for help after wreck, shot by police
Unarmed man, possibly looking for help after wreck, shot by police - CBS News

So we have a 911 call for a possible intruder in the middle of the night.

The police show up, and are charged at by a man who appears disoriented/intoxicated and who is apparently able to shrug off the effects of a Taser.

It would not be unreasonable to make the split-second assumption that this individual was on PCP or bath salts. People under the influence of these substances frequently display superhuman strength as well as a complete disregard for pain or the effects of Tasers and pepper spray. They have even been known to shrug off the effects of multiple gunshot wounds for several minutes until they finally bleed out. Combine all this with the violent, psychotic rage that these drugs produce and you have an individual who for all practical purposes becomes a wild animal that poses a huge danger to anyone in their path.

Its pretty easy to sit in an armchair after the fact and make lofty moral judgements about what the cop "should" have done. Its a little harder when its your life at stake and you are forced to make a split-second life or death decision. We know after the fact that the man was unarmed and had been in a traffic accident, but the cops who showed up on the scene did not know these facts and were merely responding to a 911 burglary call in the middle of the night. This event was a tragedy and my heart goes out to the family of the man who was shot, but I dont think its fair to charge the cop with manslaughter simply because he made a split-second error in judgement.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

Unarmed man, possibly looking for help after wreck, shot by police
Unarmed man, possibly looking for help after wreck, shot by police - CBS News

Gotta wait for more facts on this one. It seems pretty telling that the police, who have more facts than we do, have charged him with manslaughter though.

What's really strange is that he knocked on a door for help and the lady calls 911 reporting a home invasion. Yet the police say they don't believe he was trying to rob the woman. Can't wait to hear the 911 call.

 

[BigUnionGuy]

This doesn't lend much credibility to the argument.... that only the Police should have guns.


NEW YORK – Two police officers opened fired on a man who was acting erratically and dodging cars on a busy Manhattan street Saturday night, wounding two bystanders and sending people running for cover, authorities said.

Read more: 2 bystanders wounded in Midtown Manhattan police shooting | Fox News

 

[bbsam]

So does it ever happen that a civilian law abiding gun owner mistakenly or willfully shoots a cop and it is passed off as a mistake or justifiable homicide?

 

[Babagounj]

Ricky Gervais: ‘Dear America, Don’t Let Piers Morgan Buy a Gun'
Ricky Gervais: ‘Dear America, Don’t Let Piers Morgan Buy a Gun'

 

[UPS Lifer]

Gun Control is a dead issue much to the chagrin of those who try to embolden it. This terrible incident will only make those who call for more gun control look foolish. Especially those (including the prez who insinuated it) TODAY!

 

[moreluck]

Gun Control is a dead issue much to the chagrin of those who try to embolden it. This terrible incident will only make those who call for more gun control look foolish. Especially those (including the prez who insinuated it) TODAY!

Finestein (sp) was asking for it too......I guess looking foolish is AOK with her.......
Following Navy Yard Shooting, Dianne Feinstein Calls for Stricter Gun-Control Laws - NationalJournal.com

 

[Babagounj]

The only two options allowed are flee or hide .
Since the armed security forces failed to protect the workers , a third option is needed .
Have those that want to also be armed . The body count would be less . And fewer fools would try anything .