Student on Rampage Guns Down 8 in Minn.

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

MiniDoom

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2004
5,305
0
71
did anyone mention that the shooter may have obtained his weapons from his grandfather, who was a long-time police officer in the area. Do we ban cops from owning guns to? will you guys ever give up with this, you lose every time.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: rdubbz420
did anyone mention that the shooter may have obtained his weapons from his grandfather, who was a long-time police officer in the area. Do we ban cops from owning guns to? will you guys ever give up with this, you lose every time.

Don't forget the "GUN" did all the killing all by itself

 
Feb 24, 2001
14,513
4
81
the gun that kid used to shoot his classmates, was kept at hand by someone who felt he needed it to protect himselve from violence. this is just one example of how having a gun around for defence can blow up in your face.
His grandfather was a cop, and they were police issued weapons. You don't seem to be paying any attention to that point...
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
OP-Indian reservations have their own laws and are soveirgn.

Nice troll though.

Did I predict this or what? Just like I said, Indians don't count.
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
the gun that kid used to shoot his classmates, was kept at hand by someone who felt he needed it to protect himselve from violence. this is just one example of how having a gun around for defence can blow up in your face.
His grandfather was a cop, and they were police issued weapons. You don't seem to be paying any attention to that point...


What point? that cops are too incompetent to own firearms?
I can see that.
 

judasmachine

Diamond Member
Sep 15, 2002
8,515
3
81
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
the gun that kid used to shoot his classmates, was kept at hand by someone who felt he needed it to protect himselve from violence. this is just one example of how having a gun around for defence can blow up in your face.
His grandfather was a cop, and they were police issued weapons. You don't seem to be paying any attention to that point...


What point? that cops are too incompetent to own firearms?
I can see that.

Amen brother! :thumbsup:

 
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
Originally posted by: Velk
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

"I would take it that your answer is that it doesn't matter and that you are just as justified killing one of your students that you thought was going to go on a shooting spree, as opposed to killing one who *was* about to go on a shooting spree. "

That is not only my moral take on it, but the view of the United States judicial system. If you don't like it, you're free to flee to nevernever land, but here in America we have the right to defend ourselves. Period.

This is what I was asking - I found it hard to believe that was actually your stance, which is why I have asked you to clarify a number of points.

"What specifically is wrong above ? That the parents would not actually thank you for saving their children's lives even if you didn't ?"

Your entire scenerio is wrong, in that it didn't happen, and is very unlikely to happen. However if it DID happen, then you're wrong in that I was still legally and morally right in acting to stop a perceived threat.

Morally, legally, doesn't matter - if you believe that the parents of your students will thank you for saving their children's lives by killing one of their classmates for a perceived threat then really, I can't argue with you.

"I am not prepared to accept rulings for law enforcement as being equivalent to teachers,"

I can't decipher what you mean by that.

If you do present a citation, please do not use one involving a police officer and an adult felon rather than a schoolteacher and one of their students. I know that you claim it makes no difference, but if it is possible, please humor me.

"In any case, I don't know of any precedent for findings of teachers killing students on perceived threats and being found innocent of any criminal or civil wrongdoing, but I would be interested in seeing any, or any to the contrary for that matter."

Ok, you have a misunderstanding somewhere. Being a teacher is irrelevant. It doesn't give you any rights, nor does it remove any rights. The 'teacher' portion of the equation is absolutely irrelevant in court. But if you want citation of laws and cases where people defended themselves by killing their attacker(s) and were not charged with a crime I'd be happy to post a few thousand from the recent years for you. But I'm telling you now, and 99% of the country will back me in this, it's legal in America to kill someone in self defense if you perceive a threat.

No, I would like a citation of a case where a teacher was not charged with a crime after killing one of their students who appeared to be armed, but actually wasn't, and got off.

Failing that, one where anyone killed a child who appeared to be armed but was not and got off.

Failing that, one where anyone killed a child who *was* armed but had not actually fired the weapon, and got off.

Proving that a lethal shooting was the minimum reasonable force for the situation is kind of the sticking point here. It may be that you are correct, and if so I would be glad for you to expand my knowledge on this subject with actual evidence rather than assertions - they may be obvious to you, but I am not familiar with the material on which you are basing your judgement.


Happy to oblige. I probably won't find a case of a teacher killing a student, since it's illegal for teachers to have guns in school. But I'll work on the rest for you. Also, understand that the statutes I'll list are Washington State laws and other states vary 'slightly'. Overall, it's the same idea though.

Reading laws can be daunting if you aren't familiar with the process and terminology. I'll summarize as well as explain the general process. In case you're wondering I have a ridiculous amount of experience and training in these areas. After the military I entered private security and began my coursework in criminal justice as well as private classes in various safety, security and self-defense aspects. I worked in security and with law enforcement (in civilian capacities) for about 12 years so far. I have taken more private classes regarding these fields than most law enforcement personnel receive in a similar amount of time on the force. I have also been allowed to receive some limited instruction from law enforcement agencies along with their officers. I have a couple dozen certifications in relative areas, as well as my general education. I have arrested a few dozen people, and through my information and/or actions assisted with three or four times that many arrests by others. I have been in literally hundreds (probably nearing a thousand) physical confrontations, many were full assaults and I have had to draw my weapon both in the line of duty and in civilian life (though fortunately I've never had to fire). I am currently a private security consultant (part-time) and offer safety/security/self-defense courses throughout Washington State (and occassionally Oregon in special circumstances). While that doesn't make me an 'expert', it certainly gives me enough first hand experience to be useful as a reference to these discussions.

Let's say you've just shot someone. Who you are and who they are, are absolutely irrelevant under the law...they can be 10 they can be 100, female, male, big, small, absolutely does not matter. I should clarify that there ARE different rules if you are a law enforcement officer or acting as one. Anyway, so you've shot someone and the police show up. The first thing they'll do is probably have you discard your weapon (any smart person would have done so already) and they'll take you into custody for their own safety. They'll take an initial report at the scene, but honestly the correct statement to give if you shoot someone is 'Officer, I wish to cooperate, but you'll understand if I ask to speak with my lawyer before giving a statement." This is not really incriminating, and it won't change the next steps very much...especially if others on the scene explain the defensive nature of the shooting. Different people and places will respond differently at this point. Some will take you in, some will verify the defensive nature of the shooting and release you after taking your information. If you're released they will almost always confiscate your weapon. Also if you're released they'll still investigate the situation and report to the DA who'll then decide if charges will be filed. As long as you follow proper procedures it's HIGHLY unlikely that you'll be charged with a crime related to the shooting.

If you're taken in you'll go to the booking facility where you'll have a chance to speak with your lawyer (if you can get them there that quickly) and depending on the jurisdiction and the reports the police receive they'll either release you outright, release you pending investigation, or hold you pending investigation. Eventually (usually within 72 hours) they'll either charge you or let you go home while they finish their investigation like above.

So let's say that for some reason they choose to press charges. Now you go to trial. At the trial you'll be pleading not-guilty by reason of RCW 9A.16.050 (use of force when justified). Now, here's the whole point of the trial. You will attempt to show that given the circumstances and YOUR knowledge/training YOU BELIEVED you were faced with a situation covered under RCW 9A.16.050...which is to say that YOU BELIEVED a felony was being committed in your presence, or the person you shot were attempting to inflict harm...and that you used the correct level of force given that situation and that you are otherwise in your correct state of mind. If the jury of 'reasonable people' agrees that you did that, then they must find you not guilty.

I emphasized certain words above to show that it doesn't matter what the jury thinks you should have done (in theory), they must answer as to rather YOU acted correctly given YOUR knowledge and understandings. That's also why it doesn't matter if a gun is loaded or not when someone waves it at you. Because you, as the possible victim of a crime, don't know if it's loaded or not, you're allowed, by law, to react as if it is.

So that's the process in a nutshell. Again, different areas differ slightly on their wording and definitions, and quite a few states won't allow lethal force without threat of harm. I'll post some actual cases later, I'm late for a final exam right now. :cool:


RCW 9A.16.010
Definitions.

In this chapter, unless a different meaning is plainly required:

(1) "Necessary" means that no reasonably effective alternative to the use of force appeared to exist and that the amount of force used was reasonable to effect the lawful purpose intended.

(2) "Deadly force" means the intentional application of force through the use of firearms or any other means reasonably likely to cause death or serious physical injury.

[1986 c 209 § 1; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.16.010.]



RCW 9A.16.020
Use of force -- When lawful.

The use, attempt, or offer to use force upon or toward the person of another is not unlawful in the following cases:

(1) Whenever necessarily used by a public officer in the performance of a legal duty, or a person assisting the officer and acting under the officer's direction;

(2) Whenever necessarily used by a person arresting one who has committed a felony and delivering him or her to a public officer competent to receive him or her into custody;

(3) Whenever used by a party about to be injured, or by another lawfully aiding him or her, in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense against his or her person, or a malicious trespass, or other malicious interference with real or personal property lawfully in his or her possession, in case the force is not more than is necessary;

(4) Whenever reasonably used by a person to detain someone who enters or remains unlawfully in a building or on real property lawfully in the possession of such person, so long as such detention is reasonable in duration and manner to investigate the reason for the detained person's presence on the premises, and so long as the premises in question did not reasonably appear to be intended to be open to members of the public;

(5) Whenever used by a carrier of passengers or the carrier's authorized agent or servant, or other person assisting them at their request in expelling from a carriage, railway car, vessel, or other vehicle, a passenger who refuses to obey a lawful and reasonable regulation prescribed for the conduct of passengers, if such vehicle has first been stopped and the force used is not more than is necessary to expel the offender with reasonable regard to the offender's personal safety;

(6) Whenever used by any person to prevent a mentally ill, mentally incompetent, or mentally disabled person from committing an act dangerous to any person, or in enforcing necessary restraint for the protection or restoration to health of the person, during such period only as is necessary to obtain legal authority for the restraint or custody of the person.

[1986 c 149 § 2; 1979 ex.s. c 244 § 7; 1977 ex.s. c 80 § 13; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.16.020.]


RCW 9A.16.050
Homicide -- By other person -- When justifiable.

Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:

(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or

(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he is.

[1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.16.050.]



RCW 9A.16.110
Defending against violent crime -- Reimbursement.

(1) No person in the state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting by any reasonable means necessary, himself or herself, his or her family, or his or her real or personal property, or for coming to the aid of another who is in imminent danger of or the victim of assault, robbery, kidnapping, arson, burglary, rape, murder, or any other violent crime as defined in RCW 9.94A.030.

(2) When a person charged with a crime listed in subsection (1) of this section is found not guilty by reason of self-defense, the state of Washington shall reimburse the defendant for all reasonable costs, including loss of time, legal fees incurred, and other expenses involved in his or her defense. This reimbursement is not an independent cause of action. To award these reasonable costs the trier of fact must find that the defendant's claim of self-defense was sustained by a preponderance of the evidence. If the trier of fact makes a determination of self-defense, the judge shall determine the amount of the award.

(3) Notwithstanding a finding that a defendant's actions were justified by self-defense, if the trier of fact also determines that the defendant was engaged in criminal conduct substantially related to the events giving rise to the charges filed against the defendant the judge may deny or reduce the amount of the award. In determining the amount of the award, the judge shall also consider the seriousness of the initial criminal conduct.

Nothing in this section precludes the legislature from using the sundry claims process to grant an award where none was granted under this section or to grant a higher award than one granted under this section.

(4) Whenever the issue of self-defense under this section is decided by a judge, the judge shall consider the same questions as must be answered in the special verdict under subsection (4) [(5)] of this section.

(5) Whenever the issue of self-defense under this section has been submitted to a jury, and the jury has found the defendant not guilty, the court shall instruct the jury to return a special verdict in substantially the following form:


answer yes or no
1. Was the finding of not guilty based upon self-defense? . . . . .
2. If your answer to question 1 is no, do not answer the remaining question.
3. If your answer to question 1 is yes, was the defendant:
a. Protecting himself or herself? . . . . .
b. Protecting his or her family? . . . . .
c. Protecting his or her property? . . . . .
d. Coming to the aid of another who was in imminent danger of a heinous crime? . . . . .
e. Coming to the aid of another who was the victim of a heinous crime? . . . . .
f. Engaged in criminal conduct substantially related to the events giving rise to the crime with which the defendant is charged? . . . . .

[1995 c 44 § 1; 1989 c 94 § 1; 1977 ex.s. c 206 § 8. Formerly RCW 9.01.200.]


 
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
Originally posted by: renierh
Originally posted by: Condor
[

See, gun grabbers deny the truth daily. The death rate has gone up with every new gun control law. Back in the fifties, when almost everyone carried a gun on the person or in the car, there were few murders. As the DA libs passed useless laws against people being able to defend themselves, they have created a society of unarmed victims - yet they are simply too stupid to even see that! No explaining how people that damned dumb can be aware enough to tie their own shoes! Think about it, a principle can't spank a kid in school because it is too cruel, yet a cop can taser him! That is what happens when liberals try to control society through the drivel they call legislature!

well, apart from the insults, wich i'm not even going to respond to (you never know with your kind of people, you might feel you have to "defend" yourself) your reasoning is that of a five year old. in the fifties people had guns, and in the fifties, fewer people where murdered, therefor, when there are more guns, fewer people get murdered. that's like saying: "in the fifties, we didn't have any immigrants and there was no hole in the ozone layer, therefor, immigrants cause the hole in the ozone layer. you're connecting facts that have no proven link whatsoever, and on top of that, you're leaving out loads of changes that occurded since the fifties.

honestly, i expected a little more from the pro gun people. can anybody give me a different perspective on how they plan to make shure the weapons are used for defense and not for shooting your wife in an argument, or having your 5 year old son kill your 3 year old daughter during a game?

i would really love to read a pro gun post that doesn't ooze that "i can shoot anybody who eyeballs me because it's in the constitution and if you take my gun away i'm scared shitless that all the bad guys will come over to my suburb and rape my wife" attitude. ease up people, the world is not the depressive, horribly dangerous place you believe it to be, unless you make it that by whipping out your gun everytime somebody looks at you.

oh, and for the teacher who brings a gun into the classroom: you should seek professional help man. what you're doing has nothing to do with protecting yourself, this is pure paranoia. people like you owning a gun is the best justification for gun control i can think of.


[/quote]



I see words, I see no support or merit. So fvck off till you grow up and learn how to make a valid argument.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
Did I predict this or what? Just like I said, Indians don't count.

Are you suggesting we take away their soveirgn status?

No, I'm saying that early in the thread I predicted that some gunner would come in and discard the story because they're on a reservation. Nice attempt at reading comprehension though gen. ;)
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Did I discard the story? I discarded the OPs assertion that our gun laws and or gun control would have anything to do with this.

I would take a dose of your own own medicine and learn to read.

 

imported_Condor

Diamond Member
Sep 22, 2004
5,425
0
0
Originally posted by: renierh
Originally posted by: Condor
[

See, gun grabbers deny the truth daily. The death rate has gone up with every new gun control law. Back in the fifties, when almost everyone carried a gun on the person or in the car, there were few murders. As the DA libs passed useless laws against people being able to defend themselves, they have created a society of unarmed victims - yet they are simply too stupid to even see that! No explaining how people that damned dumb can be aware enough to tie their own shoes! Think about it, a principle can't spank a kid in school because it is too cruel, yet a cop can taser him! That is what happens when liberals try to control society through the drivel they call legislature!

well, apart from the insults, wich i'm not even going to respond to (you never know with your kind of people, you might feel you have to "defend" yourself) your reasoning is that of a five year old. in the fifties people had guns, and in the fifties, fewer people where murdered, therefor, when there are more guns, fewer people get murdered. that's like saying: "in the fifties, we didn't have any immigrants and there was no hole in the ozone layer, therefor, immigrants cause the hole in the ozone layer. you're connecting facts that have no proven link whatsoever, and on top of that, you're leaving out loads of changes that occurded since the fifties.

honestly, i expected a little more from the pro gun people. can anybody give me a different perspective on how they plan to make shure the weapons are used for defense and not for shooting your wife in an argument, or having your 5 year old son kill your 3 year old daughter during a game?

i would really love to read a pro gun post that doesn't ooze that "i can shoot anybody who eyeballs me because it's in the constitution and if you take my gun away i'm scared shitless that all the bad guys will come over to my suburb and rape my wife" attitude. ease up people, the world is not the depressive, horribly dangerous place you believe it to be, unless you make it that by whipping out your gun everytime somebody looks at you.

oh, and for the teacher who brings a gun into the classroom: you should seek professional help man. what you're doing has nothing to do with protecting yourself, this is pure paranoia. people like you owning a gun is the best justification for gun control i can think of.


[/quote]

Well, we certainly don't expect anymore from you gun grabbers! As far as the world not being as reported, where have you been in the world? Walked the mean streets of San Salvador? Kingston? Old Saigon? How about Chi town? NYC?, etc? Seen people knifed in the Coney stand across from Madison Square Garden? Been further than the local laundry mat? I thought not! Easy to talk when you know that a gun lover will be there to protect you when the truth outs some dark night when a drugger that can't sell his knife for enough for a fix appears out of the night. Remember guys, when this yahoo calls for help, just say no!
 

imported_Condor

Diamond Member
Sep 22, 2004
5,425
0
0
"ofcourse we wouldn't. the thing you're conveniently forgetting is that all of these things, except guns, don't have the primary function of killing people. therefor it would be pretty hard, not to mention very inconvenient to outlaw them. handguns however, exist for the sole purpose of killing or wounding other people. even if you don't agree with my opinion on guns, you have to admit that the point your making above won't hold up. "

Spoken like a bumpkin who has never been aroung guns or the world. If you prospect in the west, you carry a handgun. Why, you ask in your ignorance? Because there are snakes and other varmits that think you are on their food chain and you can't carry your tools and a long gun! See how ignorant you are! You didn't even know that.

 

imported_Condor

Diamond Member
Sep 22, 2004
5,425
0
0
Originally posted by: renierh
Originally posted by: Condor
[

See, gun grabbers deny the truth daily. The death rate has gone up with every new gun control law. Back in the fifties, when almost everyone carried a gun on the person or in the car, there were few murders. As the DA libs passed useless laws against people being able to defend themselves, they have created a society of unarmed victims - yet they are simply too stupid to even see that! No explaining how people that damned dumb can be aware enough to tie their own shoes! Think about it, a principle can't spank a kid in school because it is too cruel, yet a cop can taser him! That is what happens when liberals try to control society through the drivel they call legislature!

well, apart from the insults, wich i'm not even going to respond to (you never know with your kind of people, you might feel you have to "defend" yourself) your reasoning is that of a five year old. in the fifties people had guns, and in the fifties, fewer people where murdered, therefor, when there are more guns, fewer people get murdered. that's like saying: "in the fifties, we didn't have any immigrants and there was no hole in the ozone layer, therefor, immigrants cause the hole in the ozone layer. you're connecting facts that have no proven link whatsoever, and on top of that, you're leaving out loads of changes that occurded since the fifties.

honestly, i expected a little more from the pro gun people. can anybody give me a different perspective on how they plan to make shure the weapons are used for defense and not for shooting your wife in an argument, or having your 5 year old son kill your 3 year old daughter during a game?

i would really love to read a pro gun post that doesn't ooze that "i can shoot anybody who eyeballs me because it's in the constitution and if you take my gun away i'm scared shitless that all the bad guys will come over to my suburb and rape my wife" attitude. ease up people, the world is not the depressive, horribly dangerous place you believe it to be, unless you make it that by whipping out your gun everytime somebody looks at you.

oh, and for the teacher who brings a gun into the classroom: you should seek professional help man. what you're doing has nothing to do with protecting yourself, this is pure paranoia. people like you owning a gun is the best justification for gun control i can think of.


[/quote]

A little hard to put you in context since you aren't even bold enough to publish a profile.

 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
wtf? why do you need a pistol for a snake? hahaha

yeah what animal stalks humans without humans disturbing them first. :roll:
If a big cat is going to come at you a tranq will do just as well and far less dangerous to society.
IF you need to hunt then dont be a coward and give the animal a fair chance and use a real weapon.
You have a perfectly good chance to take your ass to a store to eat and if you want to hunt the animal deserves the right to eat YOU.
 

imported_Condor

Diamond Member
Sep 22, 2004
5,425
0
0
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
wtf? why do you need a pistol for a snake? hahaha

yeah what animal stalks humans without humans disturbing them first. :roll:
If a big cat is going to come at you a tranq will do just as well and far less dangerous to society.
IF you need to hunt then dont be a coward and give the animal a fair chance and use a real weapon.
You have a perfectly good chance to take your ass to a store to eat and if you want to hunt the animal deserves the right to eat YOU.

I'm afraid that you don't find stuff that prospectors seek in grocery stores. Snakes, by the way, seldom warn before striking! They may rattle, but that may be too late. You want to beat one to death with your fist, go for it! I will keep the trusty 44 mag with rat shot in the side holster. That works for me! By the way, did you even read what I posted?

 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Bottom line -- another senseless shooting in a nation that has some very obvious problems with guns and violence in schools. No problem. We can just keep ignoring it until the next time a dozen or so kids get slaughtered.

Happy hunting. :roll:

 

MiniDoom

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2004
5,305
0
71
Originally posted by: BBond
Bottom line -- another senseless shooting in a nation that has some very obvious problems with guns and violence in schools. No problem. We can just keep ignoring it until the next time a dozen or so kids get slaughtered.

Happy hunting. :roll:

So what do you suggest we do? ban guns for everyone cops included? I want to hear your solution, it?s easy to point the problem out.
 

eigen

Diamond Member
Nov 19, 2003
4,000
1
0
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
wtf? why do you need a pistol for a snake? hahaha

yeah what animal stalks humans without humans disturbing them first. :roll:
If a big cat is going to come at you a tranq will do just as well and far less dangerous to society.
IF you need to hunt then dont be a coward and give the animal a fair chance and use a real weapon.
You have a perfectly good chance to take your ass to a store to eat and if you want to hunt the animal deserves the right to eat YOU.

Do you realize that there are Native Americans in this country that still rely on hunted/fished food for substince?They cant go to the grocery store and "just buy" it cause they are poor.They cant just jaunt down to the local coffeshop and pick up a chai either.So you can take your racist liberal worldview and march it back to the peace protest.
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: rdubbz420
Originally posted by: BBond
Bottom line -- another senseless shooting in a nation that has some very obvious problems with guns and violence in schools. No problem. We can just keep ignoring it until the next time a dozen or so kids get slaughtered.

Happy hunting. :roll:

So what do you suggest we do? ban guns for everyone cops included? I want to hear your solution, it?s easy to point the problem out.

I would think the people we elect would be able to come up with some rules for safe storage of firearms. But since they're being paid by the NRA to defeat any restrictions on gun ownership that isn't likely to happen, is it? So here are a few suggestions right off the top of my head.

Strict gun control laws for purchase and ownership. Background checks. Requirements for the safe handling and keeping of firearms so some kid can't get hold of grandpa's gun and waste a few classmates.

If you are a licensed, legal owner of firearms you should be responsible for their safe storage. If anyone uses your firearms illegally due to your negligence you should be held responsible right along with the person who uses them illegally. In other words, keep your weapons under lock and key in tamper proof storage and keep the damn ammo under lock and key in another location. Don't leave your firearms lying around loaded because it makes you feel safer. It only makes things much less safe for the rest of us.

Use some common sense. Americans are more careful using their lawnmower than they are with their firearms. And these kids are mowing down classmates rather than mowing lawns as a result.

 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
47,996
37,167
136
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: rdubbz420
Originally posted by: BBond
Bottom line -- another senseless shooting in a nation that has some very obvious problems with guns and violence in schools. No problem. We can just keep ignoring it until the next time a dozen or so kids get slaughtered.

Happy hunting. :roll:

So what do you suggest we do? ban guns for everyone cops included? I want to hear your solution, it?s easy to point the problem out.

I would think the people we elect would be able to come up with some rules for safe storage of firearms. But since they're being paid by the NRA to defeat any restrictions on gun ownership that isn't likely to happen, is it? So here are a few suggestions right off the top of my head.

Strict gun control laws for purchase and ownership. Background checks. Requirements for the safe handling and keeping of firearms so some kid can't get hold of grandpa's gun and waste a few classmates.

If you are a licensed, legal owner of firearms you should be responsible for their safe storage. If anyone uses your firearms illegally due to your negligence you should be held responsible right along with the person who uses them illegally. In other words, keep your weapons under lock and key in tamper proof storage and keep the damn ammo under lock and key in another location. Don't leave your firearms lying around loaded because it makes you feel safer. It only makes things much less safe for the rest of us.

Use some common sense. Americans are more careful using their lawnmower than they are with their firearms. And these kids are mowing down classmates rather than mowing lawns as a result.

I'll trade you that (even though some of that is already law) for the complete dropping of all AWBs nationwide, national concealed carry, and re-opening of NFA firearms registration.
 
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: rdubbz420
Originally posted by: BBond
Bottom line -- another senseless shooting in a nation that has some very obvious problems with guns and violence in schools. No problem. We can just keep ignoring it until the next time a dozen or so kids get slaughtered.

Happy hunting. :roll:

So what do you suggest we do? ban guns for everyone cops included? I want to hear your solution, it?s easy to point the problem out.

I would think the people we elect would be able to come up with some rules for safe storage of firearms. But since they're being paid by the NRA to defeat any restrictions on gun ownership that isn't likely to happen, is it? So here are a few suggestions right off the top of my head.

Strict gun control laws for purchase and ownership. Background checks. Requirements for the safe handling and keeping of firearms so some kid can't get hold of grandpa's gun and waste a few classmates.

If you are a licensed, legal owner of firearms you should be responsible for their safe storage. If anyone uses your firearms illegally due to your negligence you should be held responsible right along with the person who uses them illegally. In other words, keep your weapons under lock and key in tamper proof storage and keep the damn ammo under lock and key in another location. Don't leave your firearms lying around loaded because it makes you feel safer. It only makes things much less safe for the rest of us.

Use some common sense. Americans are more careful using their lawnmower than they are with their firearms. And these kids are mowing down classmates rather than mowing lawns as a result.

Why would you expect more from a politician than you are capable or willing to give yourself? Do you believe they are somehow special?

There already are VERY strict background checks and some rules on ownership/storage. It hasn't helped AT ALL, not in the least. There are ALWAYS ways to go underground there are ALWAYS ways to cheat the system. Furthermore as I already pointed out quite clearly NO LAWS PREVENT CRIME. That means that making it a class A federal felony for faulty storage of a firearm would NOT prevent faulty storage of firearms, it would just increase the punishments when people did it.

Cute words, but full of fallacies. I want you to explain exactly how these 'laws' will keep the guns out of kids hands, when so many are bought illegally anyway. I want you to provide proof that it's unsafe storage of firearms that cause a majority of the problems.

I think, when people do as I ask and really think about the issues and learn about what's going on, they're very likely to see that the problems facing America are SOCIAL ISSUES and not so much 'gun issues'...especially when so many other countries have equal or increased access to firearms with lower crime and accident ratings. Not that that will change peoples feelings...a feeling is a feeling and isn't subject to rationality.
 
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: rdubbz420
Originally posted by: BBond
Bottom line -- another senseless shooting in a nation that has some very obvious problems with guns and violence in schools. No problem. We can just keep ignoring it until the next time a dozen or so kids get slaughtered.

Happy hunting. :roll:

So what do you suggest we do? ban guns for everyone cops included? I want to hear your solution, it?s easy to point the problem out.

I would think the people we elect would be able to come up with some rules for safe storage of firearms. But since they're being paid by the NRA to defeat any restrictions on gun ownership that isn't likely to happen, is it? So here are a few suggestions right off the top of my head.

Strict gun control laws for purchase and ownership. Background checks. Requirements for the safe handling and keeping of firearms so some kid can't get hold of grandpa's gun and waste a few classmates.

If you are a licensed, legal owner of firearms you should be responsible for their safe storage. If anyone uses your firearms illegally due to your negligence you should be held responsible right along with the person who uses them illegally. In other words, keep your weapons under lock and key in tamper proof storage and keep the damn ammo under lock and key in another location. Don't leave your firearms lying around loaded because it makes you feel safer. It only makes things much less safe for the rest of us.

Use some common sense. Americans are more careful using their lawnmower than they are with their firearms. And these kids are mowing down classmates rather than mowing lawns as a result.

I'll trade you that (even though some of that is already law) for the complete dropping of all AWBs nationwide, national concealed carry, and re-opening of NFA firearms registration.

No kidding. It's got my vote...as long as you drop public restriction on carry as well (schools, post offices, etc).