[andyt]

I just think to be an "honest" meat eater you should kill and process at least one animal you would eat. But I'm not strong enough on my principals to make an effort to follow it up.

[ShepherdsDog]

andyt andyt:

Brenda Brenda:

Gunnair Gunnair:

a couple of fun runs at the local shooting range.

THAT is actually much fun to do!

I am a pussy tho, and will leave the guns there, safely locked up

Shooting at cans in the woods with a rifle is fun too

My dad was a sharp shooter in the army. I must have his genes

I've shot a bird with a pellet gun and felt like shit for it. Never shot at a living thing with a real gun, don't know if I could pull the trigger in a hunting situation, but I would like to know how to hunt. (not enough to ever bother to try it tho). But shooting a person, that would be a whole different thing. Guess if they're trying to shoot you, it would be easier.

I used to be an avid hunter and fisherman(I started going with older family members when I was 10 and did my first kill at 13(discounting gophers) up near Wells, BC. I didn't hunt for 'trophy' kills, I ate what I killed....excepting things that raided my garbage cans or dug holes in my yard. We always had venison, elk, moose, ducks, partridge/prairie chicken/grouse and geese in our freezer to supplemrnt domestic meat. I've also gone and done a lot of hunting where the only thing I brought back were pictures of wild life.

[Brenda]

andyt andyt:

I just think to be an "honest" meat eater you should kill and process at least one animal you would eat. But I'm not strong enough on my principals to make an effort to follow it up.

I worked for a butcher for years since I was 13 (till I was 18 tho, it's been a while ). I think I paid my dues

[andyt]

Make that principles. Hate it when people do that.

[bootlegga]

Gunnair Gunnair:

Brenda Brenda:

Gunnair Gunnair:

a couple of fun runs at the local shooting range.

THAT is actually much fun to do!

I am a pussy tho, and will leave the guns there, safely locked up

Shooting at cans in the woods with a rifle is fun too

My dad was a sharp shooter in the army. I must have his genes

Agreed. I like shooting as well. That doesn't always translate to someone how can draw, aim, and fire in a calm manner that is going to hit the target instead of everyone around it.

I'd rep if I could...

[BartSimpson]

desertdude desertdude:

Exactly a vicious circle that can be only broken if you take guns out of the equasion.

Because the gun laws worked so well in Norway, right? And gun restrictions did nothing to stop the twit from building a bomb.

The sad truth is that violent people are violent people and the best things we can do are to be aware of who's got such issues that they pose a threat. And, God forbid, if they act on their impulses it falls to each of us to be our own first responders.

Norway again comes to mind with the police taking 90 minutes to respond to the attack. All politicallly correct niceties aside, the guy had a field day with his attack precisely because he carried it out in a situation where no one else was armed.

The guy who attacked the Army fort in Texas did the same thing, he attacked the one place in Texas...an Army base of all things...where regulations kept everyone disarmed.

You'll never hear of such an attack at a public location in Texas because so many people are armed and will take down a shooter.

[andyt]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

desertdude desertdude:

Exactly a vicious circle that can be only broken if you take guns out of the equasion.

Because the gun laws worked so well in Norway Texas, right?

Because the gun laws worked so well in Norway Texas, right?

[BartSimpson]

andyt andyt:

Because the gun laws worked so well in Norway Texas, right?

Imperfect as things may be now, the situation in Texas was worse when gun control was the norm.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby's_massacre

This massacre was precisely what led to Texas ending the failed experiment of disarming its citizens in the face of armed criminals.

I'd much prefer a society in which we did not need guns, but I don't wish to get rid of my guns when the need for them is still extant.

[bootlegga]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

You'll never hear of such an attack at a public location in Texas because so many people are armed and will take down a shooter.

Well, sad to say, but based on this incident, you're wrong.

No one else 'took down' this guy, he killed those he wanted to in a public place and then turned the weapon on himself.

In most of the recent massacres of this type in the US, I haven't once heard of a civilian intervening - it's always been either a law enforcement type or the shooter taking his own life.

Theoretically what you suggest may occur at some future event, but I haven't heard of any incidents where a gun-owning civilian takes down perp(s) on the verge of committing acts like this. If you happen to know of some, please post them here, because I'd like to see whether or not what CCW proponents is actually true or just some 'what if' scenario being posed to get their way (this is an honest request, no snarkiness intended at all).

[andyt]

Well those guys are just not quick enough on the draw. What the US needs to enact is a law that holds a shooter blameless if he kills someone in the sincere belief that person was about to commit murder. Preventative killing sort of idea. That will make everyone safer except the bad guys, since we all know what they look like.

[BartSimpson]

Forum Roller World's policy on concealed carry is that they don't restrict it. So the fact that this psycho got as far as he did had to do with the fact that no one else was carrying at the rink.

To Andy's comment, Castle Doctrine does exactly what you're suggesting. If a person shoots someone in the sincere belief that the person was about to harm others then the law in 38 states explicitly prohibits their prosecution in the absence of evidence to the contrary. California and a few other states have similar legal situations for 'Good Samaritans' while not having a stated Castle Doctrine law on the books.

[andyt]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Forum Roller World's policy on concealed carry is that they don't restrict it. So the fact that this psycho got as far as he did had to do with the fact that no one else was carrying at the rink.

To Andy's comment, Castle Doctrine does exactly what you're suggesting. If a person shoots someone in the sincere belief that the person was about to harm others then the law in 38 states explicitly prohibits their prosecution in the absence of evidence to the contrary. California and a few other states have similar legal situations for 'Good Samaritans' while not having a stated Castle Doctrine law on the books.

Skating rink is your castle now too, is it?

[BartSimpson]

bootlegga bootlegga:

In most of the recent massacres of this type in the US, I haven't once heard of a civilian intervening - it's always been either a law enforcement type or the shooter taking his own life.

That's a non-sequitur. If someone intervenes then the potential massacre is effectively prevented and you won't hear of someone intervening at a massacre that didn't take place.

In 1966 there was a massacre at the University of Texas at Austin and the shooter was stopped by both an armed civilian and a trooper who both fired fatal shots at the shooter.

To prove your point clearly what would need to happen would be a massacre at a gun show, a police station, an NRA onvention, or at a shooting range. The problem is that the "insane" shooters are always sane enough to seek out unarmed victims.

The fact that these 'insane' shooters go for unarmed victims is, to me, sufficient proof of their cognizance as to vacate any potential insanity defense.

This SOB in Norway, for instance, should not have an insanity defense. His actions speak to clear, concise planning and premeditation and while Norway does not have a death penalty, they should never let this SOB see the light of day ever again.

[bootlegga]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

bootlegga bootlegga:

In most of the recent massacres of this type in the US, I haven't once heard of a civilian intervening - it's always been either a law enforcement type or the shooter taking his own life.

That's a non-sequitur. If someone intervenes then the potential massacre is effectively prevented and you won't hear of someone intervening at a massacre that didn't take place.

In 1966 there was a massacre at the University of Texas at Austin and the shooter was stopped by both an armed civilian and a trooper who both fired fatal shots at the shooter.

To prove your point clearly what would need to happen would be a massacre at a gun show, a police station, an NRA onvention, or at a shooting range. The problem is that the "insane" shooters are always sane enough to seek out unarmed victims.

The fact that these 'insane' shooters go for unarmed victims is, to me, sufficient proof of their cognizance as to vacate any potential insanity defense.

This SOB in Norway, for instance, should not have an insanity defense. His actions speak to clear, concise planning and premeditation and while Norway does not have a death penalty, they should never let this SOB see the light of day ever again.

No, not really.

What I want to hear about is an event like say a school shooting where an armed civilian 'took down' a gun-wielding maniac, thereby preventing a massacre. Or failing that, show me an example where an armed civilian intervened before the police did and limited the numbers of dead and wounded.

That's all I'm asking for.

If you want to sway my opinion, I want an example of when something like that happened. Otherwise, just saying that maniacs target unarmed people isn't proof of anything - you're only providing a theory that carrying guns MAY save lives. I could just as easily argue that the lucky penny I carry in my wallet protects me from gun massacres/alien abduction/whatever.

A theory without evidence to support it is just that - a theory.

After all, in the decade or more since many US states (Texas did so in 1995 for example) adopted CCW laws, if this argument was a cogent as its proponents insist it is, there should have been at least one such "Awesome Samaritan" (Awesome instead of good because he/she saved innocent lives) incident you and other CCW/gun proponets can point to as proof that carrying guns everywhere works to deter gun massacres.

Your 1966 example is a start - however, I'd prefer something more modern to reflect the differences that CCW has purportedly made.

Right now, all I see is that these gun massacres happen anywhere in the US, from gun-banning places (like Virginia Tech) to places that allow CCW (like Arizona and now Texas).

[uwish]

The overall benefits of concealed carry I don't think can be disputed.

post1585049#p1585049

One of my many rants on the subject.