Gun control and the misrepresentation of conservatism

[Woodruff]

I'm not saying it can't. I'm just suspicious that It would provide protection to the degree that gun owners would suffer from fewer crimes than non gun-owners.

I don't know about the fewer-crimes argument. Personally however, I view it as a peace-of-mind issue. You're correct that the presence of a weapon doesn't change the likelihood of a crime if no one is home to use it. However, if I'm not home, I'm not nearly as concerned about a robbery. Because while they'll steal my stuff and I'll be all kinds of pissed off and feeling violated and such...it's just stuff that largely can be replaced. But if my wife or I are at home, our lives could well be in danger, and the weapon then has the usefulness of ensuring that we're protected.

So I don't see it so much as stuff-protection but rather personal-protection.

[pimpdave]

If you shoot a mugger in the legs as they're running away, be prepared to be successfully sued for everything you've got.

This was a necessary post and not just completely repeating what I had just said at all. Thanks for contributing!

[Phatscotty]

You give them your wallet, then wip the gun out as they run away. POP.

This is actually one of the more intelligent gun protection ideas.. not that I truly agree with it, but it is closer to a correct response.
The REAL answer is to get the police, but in poorer neighborhood (and sometimes even wealthy ones) that can take a very long time.

that's why you SHOOT THEM. Not fatally, though. legs, or something. aim for the crotch area, if you are feeling vindictive

If you shoot a mugger in the legs as they're running away, be prepared to be successfully sued for everything you've got.

there is no reason to shoot someone when they are running away (unless they are firing at you). If you shoot an unarmed person while they are running away, then you most likely did something stupid. This just happened here in MN least week.

I cant find a link but this 60 year old convenience store worker/owner shot a couple kids in the back. there are bets going around whether this guy is gonna catch a charge and he very well might. what we dont know is if the criminal shot first and then ran, took the mans wallet and told him he'd come visit his wife sometime next week cuz he has their address, there are always different reasons but it happens. I wonder what happened to that guy in TX who shot the dude while he was on the phone with 911.

I did find this one from TX http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPuM_XAo2BE

[Night Strike]

Yes, which is why parents take the time to teach kids how to use a fork. However, even those brought up in hunting families too often don't take the time to teach or learn themselves proper gun safety.

Wow. Before anyone in my family (both immediate and extended) has been taught anything about hunting, they were first taught how to safely handle a gun. Your lines are just part of the lies city people try to spread to outlaw guns. ANY hunter even halfway worth their salt knows that the most important part of hunting with guns is safety, with the second most important being conservation. It's not the hunting families that have the gun issues.

OMG, not this shit again. we covered this over a year ago, dave. he is NOT the founder of anything. The tea party is the remnant of the 2008 Ron Paul campaign, and we are here for him in larger numbers this time around.

Don't worry, that's the only line of attack pimpdave has against the Tea Party. We should probably pity his lack of intelligent arguments against those people.

You give them your wallet, then wip the gun out as they run away. POP.

This is actually one of the more intelligent gun protection ideas.. not that I truly agree with it, but it is closer to a correct response.
The REAL answer is to get the police, but in poorer neighborhood (and sometimes even wealthy ones) that can take a very long time.

that's why you SHOOT THEM. Not fatally, though. legs, or something. aim for the crotch area, if you are feeling vindictive

If you shoot a mugger in the legs as they're running away, be prepared to be successfully sued for everything you've got.

Which is one of the reasons our society is so screwed up: the criminals get more protections than the victims. People can't even defend their own homes and property from people who are trying to take from them everything they own. It's preposterous!

[Woodruff]

You give them your wallet, then wip the gun out as they run away. POP.

This is actually one of the more intelligent gun protection ideas.. not that I truly agree with it, but it is closer to a correct response.
The REAL answer is to get the police, but in poorer neighborhood (and sometimes even wealthy ones) that can take a very long time.

that's why you SHOOT THEM. Not fatally, though. legs, or something. aim for the crotch area, if you are feeling vindictive

If you shoot a mugger in the legs as they're running away, be prepared to be successfully sued for everything you've got.

Which is one of the reasons our society is so screwed up: the criminals get more protections than the victims. People can't even defend their own homes and property from people who are trying to take from them everything they own. It's preposterous!

What? Night Strike, I am stunned to see you say that. Honestly...that's a horrific thing for you to say. Shooting at someone when there is no very serious threat to your life or welfare is obscene. I don't care what they took...it's just stuff. And if they're running away from you, then you're no longer "defending" ANYTHING.

[Night Strike]

Which is one of the reasons our society is so screwed up: the criminals get more protections than the victims. People can't even defend their own homes and property from people who are trying to take from them everything they own. It's preposterous!

What? Night Strike, I am stunned to see you say that. Honestly...that's a horrific thing for you to say. Shooting at someone when there is no very serious threat to your life or welfare is obscene. I don't care what they took...it's just stuff. And if they're running away from you, then you're no longer "defending" ANYTHING.

Why would you be surprised? It's another case of entitlements, except the kind that involves breaking the laws. Criminals think they are entitled to someone else's property that when they get attacked for attempting to steal that property, they think that they deserve to bring charges on the owner. Not allowing people to defend their PRIVATE property is an even bigger injustice than what you posted from the Indiana Supreme Court. Sorry, but my property is NOT available for anyone to come and take as they please. If they want something I own, they can go out and earn their own. I should have the right to defend my hard-earned property. We no longer have property rights if anybody can come in and take whatever they want to take without repercussions. So much for No Trespassing signs if the homeowners get prosecuted for self defense.

[Woodruff]

Which is one of the reasons our society is so screwed up: the criminals get more protections than the victims. People can't even defend their own homes and property from people who are trying to take from them everything they own. It's preposterous!

What? Night Strike, I am stunned to see you say that. Honestly...that's a horrific thing for you to say. Shooting at someone when there is no very serious threat to your life or welfare is obscene. I don't care what they took...it's just stuff. And if they're running away from you, then you're no longer "defending" ANYTHING.

Why would you be surprised? It's another case of entitlements, except the kind that involves breaking the laws. Criminals think they are entitled to someone else's property that when they get attacked for attempting to steal that property, they think that they deserve to bring charges on the owner. Not allowing people to defend their PRIVATE property is an even bigger injustice than what you posted from the Indiana Supreme Court. Sorry, but my property is NOT available for anyone to come and take as they please. If they want something I own, they can go out and earn their own. I should have the right to defend my hard-earned property. We no longer have property rights if anybody can come in and take whatever they want to take without repercussions. So much for No Trespassing signs if the homeowners get prosecuted for self defense.

No, you are absolutely wrong about this, Night Strike. Absolutely wrong. I'm not at all saying you shouldn't be able to "defend your stuff"...however, shooting someone AS THEY'RE RUNNING AWAY is vile, under almost all circumstances. Absolutely vile. And isn't actually defending anything at all.

[PLAYER57832]

Yes, which is why parents take the time to teach kids how to use a fork. However, even those brought up in hunting families too often don't take the time to teach or learn themselves proper gun safety.

Wow. Before anyone in my family (both immediate and extended) has been taught anything about hunting, they were first taught how to safely handle a gun. Your lines are just part of the lies city people try to spread to outlaw guns.

I SHOULD tell you exactly where I live, but anyway.. it is in rural PA, my husband has more than a few guns, my stepsons and son were all shooting, as were most of my neighbor kids (not the drugheads, thankfully) by the time they were 5...

I am speaking of the city "dudes" who we have to deal with every year, and some pretty specific incidents where people were shot.

Anway... gotta go to a rousing game of UNO.

[HapSmo19]

...shooting someone AS THEY'RE RUNNING AWAY is vile, under almost all circumstances. Absolutely vile. And isn't actually defending anything at all.

Not vile at all. It's called "getting your stuff back".

[Night Strike]

Which is one of the reasons our society is so screwed up: the criminals get more protections than the victims. People can't even defend their own homes and property from people who are trying to take from them everything they own. It's preposterous!

What? Night Strike, I am stunned to see you say that. Honestly...that's a horrific thing for you to say. Shooting at someone when there is no very serious threat to your life or welfare is obscene. I don't care what they took...it's just stuff. And if they're running away from you, then you're no longer "defending" ANYTHING.

Why would you be surprised? It's another case of entitlements, except the kind that involves breaking the laws. Criminals think they are entitled to someone else's property that when they get attacked for attempting to steal that property, they think that they deserve to bring charges on the owner. Not allowing people to defend their PRIVATE property is an even bigger injustice than what you posted from the Indiana Supreme Court. Sorry, but my property is NOT available for anyone to come and take as they please. If they want something I own, they can go out and earn their own. I should have the right to defend my hard-earned property. We no longer have property rights if anybody can come in and take whatever they want to take without repercussions. So much for No Trespassing signs if the homeowners get prosecuted for self defense.

No, you are absolutely wrong about this, Night Strike. Absolutely wrong. I'm not at all saying you shouldn't be able to "defend your stuff"...however, shooting someone AS THEY'RE RUNNING AWAY is vile, under almost all circumstances. Absolutely vile. And isn't actually defending anything at all.

I'm not talking about tracking down someone and taking the law into your own hands, I'm talking about while they're on your property, making sure they don't get off your property with your stuff. There's a major difference there.

[PLAYER57832]

Nightstrike... just to continue my earlier interrupted comment, I speak as someone who lives with guns, lives in a area where hunting is a way of life... and while I WISH what you said were true, it sadly is not.

I see the jerk-offs who think having the money to buy a gun means they suddenly get to be rambo, but with a lot less sense, are doing more harm to hunting in this country than any other group. And, sadly, while the NRA used to be in the forefront of taking these people to taske, lately it seems they are too eager to justify every last person's right to own guns to really and truly take on anything but the kids. They do still, thankfully, spend a lot of time educating kids, but when it gets to adults they step back and defend folks who truly ought not to be defended.

AND, I talk to a lot of the moms in this area who are close to saying "no hunting for MY kid.." because of all the plain lunacy. The only thing that has begun to reverse things is that deer levels are way down in most of PA.

If you think I am in any way exaggerating, then I would say you, too, are becoming part of the problem. It is up to the hunting community and shooting sportsfolk to "police" themselves or soon we will find others doing it for us.

[Night Strike]

Just because some people can't be responsible with their rights doesn't mean you have the power to take them away from everybody.

[PLAYER57832]

Just because some people can't be responsible with their rights doesn't mean you have the power to take them away from everybody.

Now you are twisting what I am saying. Cops have more of a responsibility to catch bad cops than average citizens. Hunters and reasonable sportsmen have a responsibility beyond that of the general public to ensure that people with guns handle them correctly. That means heavy emphasis on education of youth, of course. It also means not simply standing by when you see someone being an idiot with a gun. I don't mean confronting them directly, but there are ways.

Sometimes, it very much does mean ensuring that there are laws to set limits because not everyone is smart enough to set those limits on their own. Just like some people speed, even by schools, so, too some people use guns way, way too close to houses, would not wear orange if it weren't required (yep, I know you take it off when hunting turkeys.. my 10 year old son just got his second tad bit of mom bragging, there.. he is quite the sportsman).

If hunters don't step in and agree with, set the limits that 99.99% of gun owners, sportsfolk would do anyway, then non-hunters and folks who dislike guns will do it for them. The NRA is setting itself up in such an extreme position that they are angering a whole lot more people than they are helping. But understand one thing... I am not out parading this in public. I am quietly, along with some other women, talking behind the scenes. And.. sorry, but I cannot get more specific here.

[Night Strike]

What more laws are needed? We have plenty of laws on the books already to keep guns away from criminals. And we have many other laws that keep guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens such as outright bans in some locations as well as burdensome registration fees, both of which are probably unconstitutional. The NRA has been fighting against MORE gun laws because the ones that are needed are already on the books. They just need to be followed properly (like many laws that the government doesn't actually follow, just so they can write more laws).

[PLAYER57832]

What more laws are needed? We have plenty of laws on the books already to keep guns away from criminals. And we have many other laws that keep guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens such as outright bans in some locations as well as burdensome registration fees, both of which are probably unconstitutional. The NRA has been fighting against MORE gun laws because the ones that are needed are already on the books. They just need to be followed properly (like many laws that the government doesn't actually follow, just so they can write more laws).

I am not necessarily talking about more laws, though some are needed(mostly local ordinances to protect specific areas and such) .

If everyone were responsible than we should be perfectly safe in our houses, at the camps during hunting season (not counting the drunken idiot incidents particularly ... ironically they seem to be more self-contained..and mostly the guns are put away before). they are not. So, we do need laws. We need laws saying that you need to know not just what you see, but what is behind.. know of someone's house is there, etc. and don't shoot if you are close enough to hit that house (or the public restroom, etc.). We need laws saying gun shows cannot "demo" machine guns to 8 year old. etc.

And note, nothing in that is talking about taking away people's guns for protection or anything else. Laws are the boundaries that help control and teach idiots.