4 shot, possibly 41 hostages in NY

[Frosty]

Hang on guys, we're confusing two big things here. There's a difference between the right to own guns and the right to carry concealed....BIG difference.

[NastyEllEssWon]

what goods a gun at home locked in a cabinet while your being held at gunpoint

[JL8Jeff]

You guys are all assuming that our founding fathers meant the right to bear arms was for self defense. It wasn't meant for that purpose, it was meant for the purpose of defending our country. So arming yourself with a gun to shoot your neighbor when he breaks in to steal a loaf of bread is not defensable. The right to bear arms was meant to be controlled by the gov't. Kind of ironic, isn't it!

-

[LTb1ow]

The right to bear arms was to defend the country from tyrannical leaders who disregard the Constitution and other founding ideals.

[Savage_Messiah]

Originally Posted by NastyEllEssWon

banning guns will just keep guns away from those that follow laws. taking guns away from law obiding citizens will just make it easier for things like this to happen.



scenario in ny if guns were more commonplace:



guy bursts in job he lost. Fires shot kills one person. Someone off to the side pulls their gun and lodges one in his temple. Day over.


Tragic? Indeed. Catastrophe? its not

Due the the complete and utter stupidity of most people, that would end up more like, guy kills someone, everyone pulls their guns, panics, doesnt even know who shot first, miss their shots, everyone dies

[NastyEllEssWon]

thin the herd

[jims69camaro]

Originally Posted by Tsar

I think last time I got 400, but it's been awhile.


I think people that argue for gun control need to go to a country that has one, and live there for a little. I volunteer Russia, because I'm quite familiar with it. Don't be surprised when you run into dudes with AK-47's

you don't need to go that far away. Kngston, Jamaica is closer. go there and walk from one garrison to the next and see if you don't get shot at.

gun control laws do not affect the criminal. criminals buy their guns illegally. banning guns of a specific type doesn't work, nor do magazine limits. they are all pacifiers for the sheep.

[BigAls87Z28]

Originally Posted by Frosty

Al, just curious. What would gun control have done to stop yesterday's incident? Just curious.

Gun control, as it sits now, does nothing. He followed the law to the T. And that poses a problem. How do we know who is crazy, who should be able to own a wepon?
On one side, you say that since we cannot figure out who is qualified to own a wepon, and who isnt, then we should either remove all wepons or give everyone a wepon.

Originally Posted by NastyEllEssWon

banning guns will just keep guns away from those that follow laws. taking guns away from law obiding citizens will just make it easier for things like this to happen.

scenario in ny if guns were more commonplace:



guy bursts in job he lost. Fires shot kills one person. Someone off to the side pulls their gun and lodges one in his temple. Day over.


Tragic? Indeed. Catastrophe? its not

Ok, so who is right in that situation? Yes the depressed man who lost his job is in the wrong, but does that give the right to the other bystandard to take another mans life? No it does not. He is not above the law, he took a mans life, and he will pay with his life.
Yet another aspect is that are you willing to spend the rest of your life in jail for taking the life of someone? You kill someone, be it defense or offense, you broke the law and now you will pay.
And secondly...your average citizen is not that accurate. Best case is that he hits the person, the person goes down but is has a life altering injury, and he would sue you for discharging your wepon and destroying his life.

Originally Posted by sweetbmxrider

yeah who is going to be able to distinguish the good citizen from the bad guy? what if he misses and kills another bystander then someone else shoots at him thinking they're an accomplice? yeah gooooooood luuuuuuccckkkk

Originally Posted by NastyEllEssWon

since the common misconception that guns are bad has been a stigma since the late 70s (thanks for nothing hippies) i can see someone being uncomfortable with a handgun.

now imagine this year they repeal bans on carrying a concealed REGISTERED LEGAL weapon and the bigwigs adopt the GUNS ARE GOOD slogan. what happens?

the next generation growing up will be comfortable around guns and have grown up around them. i shot my first gun was i was 10 years old and by no means am i professional, but im comfortable and steady enough to lodge a few well aimed shots.


its just how people grow up. the same arguments here can be made for some other things that are illegal but shouldnt be.

No one will ever take the right of an American to own a gun away..no one.
I dont care how right wing crazy facist religious miltant stone cold **** nuts you are, you will never loose the right to own a gun.

But in an elevated and educated society, we can evolve past the level of violence, that is the ultimate target.

Again, Im not a fan of removing the right to own a gun, and I belive that people should be educated on saftey use of several subjects.

[jims69camaro]

Originally Posted by NastyEllEssWon

thin the herd

amen.

kill 'em all, let god sort them out. i'll never forget that bumper sticker, seen in the '70s on a white van with painted flames. the other bumper sticker on that van was: they can have my gun when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers.

[NastyEllEssWon]

if there is a person in the room that is threatening the life of everyone in the room then yes....i do have the right to take his life to stop him from taking mine. its called justifiable homicide.





heres an interesting twist....



a rabid dog bursts into your job and starts biting people. would you kill the dog? why is a human any different?

[sweetbmxrider]

dogs can't justify as you put it

[Tsar]

Originally Posted by BigAls87Z28

Yet another aspect is that are you willing to spend the rest of your life in jail for taking the life of someone? You kill someone, be it defense or offense, you broke the law and now you will pay.

You never learned about self defense, ehh?

[BigAls87Z28]

Originally Posted by NastyEllEssWon

if there is a person in the room that is threatening the life of everyone in the room then yes....i do have the right to take his life to stop him from taking mine. its called justifiable homicide.





heres an interesting twist....



a rabid dog bursts into your job and starts biting people. would you kill the dog? why is a human any different?

Show me the law where its ok to kill someone. Show me that exception in the US Constitution, the same document that people hold up when they want their rights upheld.

A dog is an animal, and does not have the same rights as a human, and as of right now there is no law that gives animals the same rights as humans. Some humans might think they do, but they dont.
What usually happens is the dog is put down due to the saftey risk that it imposes to people. Just as if a human were to rampage into a building and start biting, hitting, shooting people.

[jims69camaro]

Originally Posted by Shownomercy

That COULD just turn into a nightmare both for the cops entering and the people inside, whom if all had guns prob COULD just be havoc.

just having a gun doesn't make a person 'bad' (cheers, tsar). just having a gun in this type of situation does not mean it will be a nightmare or havoc. not all people resort to tears in the face of a dangerous situation.

finally, it's not the gun that kills, it's the person who pulls the trigger. a gun, by itself, is not dangerous. guns are not bad. people can be bad. those people who are bad that have guns, legal or otherwise, are what causes things like binghamton and columbine.

i do not currently own any projectile weapons. the future will almost dictate that i own one or two.

[Tsar]

Here's a handy dandy self defense thingy....

A NJ criminal defense which many lay people have heard before is "self-defense". A specific statute exists in New Jersey which addresses this defense and sets forth the instances where the defense applies. In this regard, use of force is justified where it is reasonably necessary to protect the actor from another using unlawful force against the actor. The law is careful to point out, however, that self defense does not apply where: (1) the physical threat is posed by a law enforcement officer (even an unlawful arrest); or (2) the force is presented by an occupier of land who possesses a claim of right to protect the property. The nature of the force used in self defense typically has to be consistent with the risk posed. In other words, use of deadly force in self defense is only justified where it is undertaken to protect against a reasonably contemplated risk of serious injury or death.

Force to Protect Third Parties

Force may be utilized to protect others provided self defense would otherwise be justified if the risk was to the actor himself. There is an additional requirement for this defense to apply, namely, that the actor reasonably believes that the assistance is necessary to prevent harm to the third party.

This is for the state of NJ. Woohooo.

[BigAls87Z28]

Yes, but thats a very loose deffinition. If someone was to break into your house, you would have to show that you were going to be harmed, and thats hard as hell.
If they come in, steal the TV, and leave, you cant shoot them.
In Texas.... different.

[Knipps]

No. Once their back is turned the act is defined as "complete" and you cannot do a damned thing.

[Tsar]

Originally Posted by BigAls87Z28

Yes, but thats a very loose deffinition. If someone was to break into your house, you would have to show that you were going to be harmed, and thats hard as hell.
If they come in, steal the TV, and leave, you cant shoot them.
In Texas.... different.

We are not talking about stealing Tv's in here, don't change your tune, we are talking about protecting ourselves. Earlier you said that you can not do that. If anyone broke into my house and threatened me, or anyone else (in my house) I would put the statue to the test. I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6, if **** went wrong and they weren't there for a TV.

Originally Posted by Knipps

No. Once their back is turned the act is defined as "complete" and you cannot do a damned thing.

This is true indeed. They can also have a knife, but once you pull a gun on them and if they stop the aggression you must seize your defense. Otherwise it murder.

[BigAls87Z28]

Originally Posted by Tsar

We are not talking about stealing Tv's in here, don't change your tune, we are talking about protecting ourselves. Earlier you said that you can not do that. If anyone broke into my house and threatened me, or anyone else (in my house) I would put the statue to the test. I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6, if **** went wrong and they weren't there for a TV.

Im not changing my tune, Im talking about the "law" you posted up.
First off, you cannot carry in NJ unless you jump through every single hoop.
So, that means you CANNOT defend yourself in an instance like this.
So really, what are you bringing up that law for? Its for home defense, thats all.
None of what you posted means ****.

Well, there is a huge difference between stealing TV's and coming to kill you. I dont think anyone is coming to kill you unless you have crossed the mob or other dark and shaddy group of criminals.
They are robbing you, and if you shoot them, you go to jail. And you lost your life. Its either death or death from getting butt ****ed by Bubba.

[Tsar]

Please stick to being a cheerleader for GM, u do that better.

[NastyEllEssWon]

if someone used FORCEFUL means to gain entry into your locked house you have the reasonable right to diffuse the situation with a firearm. if you do not see a weapon you cannot shoot to kill, if there is reasonable danger (i.e burglar with a gun) you have the right to fire upon the assailant.





it would be the same difference if they allowed the right to carry a concealed weapon. the situation in ny is the perfect example. if your carrying a gun, it means your confidant with it and at the very least COMPETENT with it.



i liked the old song you were singing al....why'd you change the track?

[Frosty]

Originally Posted by BigAls87Z28

Gun control, as it sits now, does nothing. He followed the law to the T. And that poses a problem. How do we know who is crazy, who should be able to own a wepon?
On one side, you say that since we cannot figure out who is qualified to own a wepon, and who isnt, then we should either remove all wepons or give everyone a wepon.

I'm genuinely interested in your point of view about this. How would you change the law? If the guy was stable for years then had a breakdown in a matter of months there's NO law that would stop that. The only way to stop that is to make every gun owner get a psychiatric evaluation every 6 months, lol. That's not only impossible but it'd be a drain on an already ass-backwards health system.

The problem is every time something bad happens people rush to make laws to "fix it". That's the problem with this country, every time something goes wrong we rely on our lawmakers to come up with a solution. This obviously isn't a small issue, innocent people lost their lives but how many people die from cancer due to chemicals in the air or cigarettes?

...and man...it's spelled weapon.

[jims69camaro]

Originally Posted by Frosty

...and man...it's spelled weapon.

i saw that, but decided to concentrate on the issue. people are quick to categorize. if something doesn't fit into a neat, little category, they have trouble dealing with it. that's why this debate still goes on, because it doesn't fit into a neat, little category. it's all over the place, filled with variables and different situations that cannot be clearly defined.

you can "what-if" all you want, it comes down to the cold, hard statement that guns are not bad. guns do not kill people. people kill people.

it doesn't matter what type of gun you outlaw or what limits you put on the magazine. if someone wants to die tomorrow, then they will surely find a way to make that happen. same thing goes if they want a gun. it doesn't matter how many laws are on the books.

if you outlaw guns, then only the outlaws will have guns.

[Tsar]

Originally Posted by NastyEllEssWon

if someone used FORCEFUL means to gain entry into your locked house you have the reasonable right to diffuse the situation with a firearm. if you do not see a weapon you cannot shoot to kill, if there is reasonable danger (i.e burglar with a gun) you have the right to fire upon the assailant.

but but but what if they broke into your house to plant flowers! Maybe they just brought the gun for fun!


Damn hippies.

Originally Posted by jims69camaro

you can "what-if" all you want, it comes down to the cold, hard statement that guns are not bad. guns do not kill people. people kill people.

Truth, my gun has been in my nightstand for quite a while now. Everyone is still alive.

if you outlaw guns, then only the outlaws will have guns.

Stupid people fail to see this. It's like arguing with those pro-life pro-choice people, it's pointless. Damn I think that issue is even worse.

[sweetbmxrider]

what about the criminal who attempts to rob you but breaks his leg while trying to get it, sues you, and wins? when do you pull the trigger there? before or after you shell out the cash?