10/02/2006

"Guns to save lives"...@ www.ontheborderline.net

10/2:
Pennsylvannia:
Gunman kills 4 girls, self in Amish School Shooting

Nevada: Gun reported at North Las Vegas school

South Carolina: Man charged with killing his half brother

Washington: Moses Lake man murdered

10/1
Texas:
Gunman kills 62-year-old man

South Carolina: Man Charged in Deaths of Wife, 4 Kids

9/30
Wisconsin:
Principal Killed, Student to Be Charged With Murder in Southwestern Wisconsin School Scooting

9/29:
Colorado:
Gunman kills hostage, self

Florida:Gunman Kills Fla. Cop During Traffic Stop

California: Gunman kills armored car guard

9/23
Florida:
Gunman kills guard at hotel

And that's the news from Lake Wobegon.
---


Click here for a public service announcement from the NRA on responsible gun ownership.

23 comments:

Conn Man said...

The press reports that the Amish killer was apparently preparing for a long siege, arming himself with a 9mm semiautomatic pistol, a 12-gauge shotgun and a rifle, along with a bag of about 600 rounds of ammunition, two cans of smokeless powder, two knives and a stun gun on his belt."

Or, as OTBL Conn would say, he was a liberal democrat.

AndyRand said...

This post lists multiple new stories about gun violence. There's a gun for every man, women and child in this country. You'd think you'd hear an equal number of new stories with a headline like this.
"Concealed weapon carrying citizen thwarts criminal attack." But you don't. There are more stories of accidental shootings than ones of the heroic gun toting citizen. The argument that more guns save live is a fabrication of the grossest proportions.

Fuzz said...

What is really troubling is going into houses and seeing loaded pistols laying in spots that were very accessible. In each incident the pistols were cocked (ready to fire), and NO safety locks on them.

Cato said...

Although I can't find it today, there was a story a few years back about a guy who was going to go on a shooting rampage in a college out east. I can't recall the college -- a law school if I recall. Anyway he was "subdued by other students." Out of 12 articles I read on it, one mentioned that the other students had guns and took him down. You don't hear about it because it is not reported or they call it "subduing."

Look just because people are shot it does not mean that guns should be illegal or even controlled. Why should they?

There is only one common demoniantor in all murders: the murder is a person. Maybe we should just ban people.

666 said...

Cato:

Do you think we should have a speed limit on our highways? If so, what do you think it should be? If not why?

666 said...

Fuzz:

What kind of people would leave a loaded, cocked gun laying around the house? Would these people have children in the house? Or would these people be single, white males who have a love affair with firearms and are locked and loaded for the next murdered to crawl through their window in suburban Hudson?

Cato said...

666 said...

Cato:

Do you think we should have a speed limit on our highways? If so, what do you think it should be? If not why?


Federal highways should not exist, therefore speed limits upon them should not.

On a local level, highways can exist and it is up to the local residents who own the road to determine the speed limits.

The speed limits should be whatever the owner of the road says they should be. If I somehow became owner of what say I-94 (which I would rename The Taggart Transcontinental Freeway) I'd raise it to 90 since many/most people drive safely at 85 or so. My rentacops would really enforce that speed limit though to keep my customers safe.


666, what does this have to do witha anything?

Fuzz said...

Children in the house, and people that you wouldn't differentiate from anyone else.
My point is common-sense, and safety. A person having a gun in their own home isn't an issue for me, but along with that ownership should be accountability. Granted there are laws for negligence, but unfortunately not for stupidity.

666 said...

Cato:

My questions are part of a larger Vulcan mind probe. Since you feel that federal highways shouldn't exist and local speed limits should be controlled local AND local highways should be privately, I already know the answer to my follow up question.

So you are in favor of speed limits, as long as they are controlled locally. Would you be in favor of local gun control?

AndyRand said...

CATO:

You have to go back a few years to find and example of citizens thwarting
a crime with their guns?
All I am argueing is that there are too many guns, and we don't need everybody running around with a concealed weapon to stop criminals or even to "protect" themselves. There may be people who because of their livelyhoods find themselved in situations where they may need personal protection. There are processes in place for those people to get permits. Anyway to claim that more guns save lives is just plain stupid.
I don't have a solution for the gun violence problem. Even the example you give, doesn't prevent violence it only stops further violence from continuing after it has commenced.
I don't think guns should be taken away, I never said that.Regulated in some way, yes. But we don't need an entity like to NRA to promote more and more guns and more and more powerful guns. So, CATO are you in favor of "Conceal and Carry for Kids"?

Cato said...

666,

I am not in "favor" of it itslef, but I am in favor of people being able to decide this issue of policy on a local level (highest would be state level, so long as the state Constitution is not violated), whether or not I agree with the end policy.

Unlike the National government we can all get pissed and cram a room with a few hundred angry people and demand to know what's going on with the hockey coach or whatever the issue is, which is why local control is perferable.

Cato said...

Andy, the point I was making was how it is either not reported or incorrectly reported as something else.

Andy, I think every human has a right to defend themselves, and I think children are humans. Any school that takes federal funds I think should be barred from violating their Constitutional rights.

AndyRand said...

CATO:

I'll put you down as a "Yes" to Conceal and Carry for Kids.
CATO, my friend, I hate say this but it's really a good thing you're not running for public office.

Cato said...

Look at the Republicans.

Look at the Democrats.

Sacrificing principles for power is what politicans do.

Yes--I do not think that children should be denied their reasoned right to self-defense nor their Constitutional right to self-defense.

666 said...

It's time to stop treating children like children and arm them like Jesse James. Shoot out after Pee Wee baseball game loss. Details at 6:66.

AndyRand said...

CATO:

"Yes--I do not think that children should be denied their reasoned right to self-defense nor their Constitutional right to self-defense."

Despite your careful wordsmithing, I have to say this is this is by far the most outrageous idea you've put forward to date.
I pretty much participate in this blog for purposes of entertainment.
With comments like this I was certainly not disappointed today.

If ideas like this were implemented,
what kind of a society would be have? You call this rational and principaled? Do you ignore consequenses for the sake of "principal"? Kids would be shooting each other in the hall ways and the janitors simply cleaning up the pools of blood @ 3:00.
I proposed this in the spirit of Jonathan Swift thinking nobody could seriously entertain such a notion.
I guess I was wrong.
How would you propose these kids get their guns? Would their parents buy them for them? Would they save up their money from the paper route to buy a new 9MM. Or would they put aside their meager earnings from the sweat shop or coal mine. I guess since most kids would be out laboring to help support the family, we wouldn't have to worry about them bringing guns to school.

Hurry, write you legistators and tell them you favor "Conceal and Carry for Kids".

Cato said...

Andy,

In every state where conceal and carry for adults has been passed, before it was allowed the same exact objections that you have raised about people having shootouts have been said. Has any of it come to fruition? No.

I'd say states can ban children from bringing guns into schools but I don't think that anyone who accepts Federal funds can just forget about the Constitution's protections.

BTW, Federal bans on guns in schools have been ruled unconstitutional.

Fuzz said...

Cato
Though I agree with you that Carry Conceal should be decided at a State Level, Children are different. Yes they are people, however developmentally they are not the same. typically their decision process is different, that is one of the reasons that our court system treats children differently. Though I can safely say that some people are not, and never will be able to reason as most adults can, A child for biological reasons, does not reason the same way.
By the way; Both the Minnesota and Wisconsin Chiefs of Police Associations, and Patrol Associations were opposed to Carry Conceal.

Cato said...

Yes I understand children are different. I was quite stupid in my youth and I imagine other children are the same way. However the stupidity of youth is not enough reason to deny them their rght to self-defense which is necessary for the right to life (your true reasoned right from which all others flow).

You're telling me that children have to go somewhere where their saftey is not gaurneteed and they cannot have the means to defend themselves? That's not even like sending troops to Iraq without body armor. That's sending them there without guns.

Fuzz said...

Defending ones self, and at will carrying a loaded firearm is entirely different. A recklessly discharged firearm carries it's projectile to the point where innocent people are in jepardy. I'm sure that you wouldn't want yourself or a family member to become that victim.
I've interviewed children on deaths and violence. For many, they don't equate the reality and consequences of death, or injury due to an act. They react based on emotions/hormones at a much higher, and often non-rational basis than a developmentally mature person would. That is not intended as a slight on youth, just fact.
I don't compare sending trained soldiers in a war zone, in anyway similar to children in our community. If our society has degraded to such a violent state that everyone is in danger, how will our society continue, and retain our existing constitution?
For every action there generally is a reaction. An environment where anyone is allowed to carry a firearm, would have disastrous consequences resulting in anarchy evolving into (more often than not)a totalitarian state.
Far to often violence has begotten more violence, resulting in a continuous cycle. We are not in the Wild West, or colonial times any longer. I believe that the far majority of people in this country want to live in a place that is civilized, and address differences in that manner.

Cato said...

So only criminals intent on harming children can bring guns to schools, while innocents are forced by the state to go defenseless.

Wonderful.

fuzz said...

First look at the randomness, and the characteristics behind incidences. Some schools have their own security, or liaison officers. Most schools have plans in place in an effort to deal with similar situations. I'm not implying that there shouldn't be reviews of violent situations, and find better ways to address the unexpected, but arming children isn't the answer.

Cato said...

Well perhaps it is not "the answer" but forcing people into an area against their will, denying them their Constitutionally protected rights, and then you can't even gaurentee their saftey is well, abhorrent to me.

"You have to go there, because we know what is best for your life, not you."

"But what if an armed gun man comes?"

"Then you should hide under your chair."

"Bullets go through chairs."

"Go to sleep son everything is fine."

"Does this Federally-funded institution follow the law or not? Why can't I protect myself in the manner that the Constitution gaurnetees each and every citizen will not be infringed by the Federal government?"

"Shhhhhhh go back to sleep."