News & Politics - Right to Bear Arms Discussion #4 - Page 11

**BlondieLeigh** · 06-30-2014, 07:26 PM

I find it quite sad that incidents like this can continue to happen without anything changing

**sunnykerr** · 07-01-2014, 06:28 PM

I define freedom as the right do what I want right up until that comes against another person's right to do what they want and to be protected agaisnt whatever it is I want to do.

And, for sure, any and all weaponry will always carry the risk of injury to others.

Of course.

It just seems to me that, as those risks are inherently heightened with firearms, so should there be laws that protect people a little more against that possibility.

**sunnykerr** · 07-03-2014, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Target to customers: No guns in our stores please

US retail giant Target has asked customers not to bring guns into its stores, after Texas gun rights activists demonstrated in a Texas shop with rifles slung over their shoulders.

CEO John Mulligan said guns were at odds with its family atmosphere.

Many US states allow people to carry guns in some fashion, but businesses may ban them.

Gun control activists applauded the new rule, coming as many states loosen laws restricting the carrying of firearms.

"[We] respectfully request that guests not bring firearms to Target - even in communities where it is permitted by law," Target CEO John Mulligan wrote in a statement on the company's corporate blog.

"We've listened carefully to the nuances of this debate and respect the protected rights of everyone involved," he added. "Our approach has always been to follow local laws, and of course, we will continue to do so.

'Horrified'

"Bringing firearms to Target creates an environment that is at odds with the family-friendly shopping and work experience we strive to create."

Target - which operates more than 1,700 stores in the US - now joins fellow large retail chains Starbucks and Chipotle in disallowing guns inside their establishments.

National advocacy group Moms Demand Action applauded the decision on Wednesday, noting it had gathered 400,000 signatures on a petition to persuade Target to ban guns.

"Moms everywhere were horrified to see images of people carrying loaded assault rifles down the same aisles where we shop for diapers and toys," Shannon Watts, the group's founder wrote in a statement.

"Target recognised that moms are a powerful customer base and political force - and you can respect the Second Amendment and the safety of customers at the same time."

Ms Watts was referring to a clause in the US constitution that gun rights activists say limits the government's authority to restrict firearms.

In mid-June, members of a group called Open Carry Texas demonstrated with rifles in a Dallas-area Target, garnering a rebuke from the National Rifle Association for their tactics.

US President Barack Obama has proposed several federal gun control measures in recent years - including tightening the background check system to make it harder for convicted criminals to buy guns - but Congress has declined to act under pressure from the powerful gun lobby.

Meanwhile, on Tuesday a Georgia law - known to detractors as the "Guns Everywhere law" - took effect that dramatically expands the locations in which people may carry guns in public. Those include pubs unless otherwise expressly banned by the proprietors, churches, unsecured areas of airports, and government buildings.

This is what I like about what these gun control activists are doing.

They're making store owners confront what it means to comply with these super-lax laws, and it's not pretty.

Because, honestly, why would you need a firearm in a store if it wasn't your intention to rob it?

What kind of potential danger could you possibly run into in a store that would require a firearm?

This isn't the Far West anymore.

xbecca · 07-04-2014, 12:37 AM

I understand this may not be popular opinion from what I have read on this form, and I hope to not be attacked, but possibly provide a discussion. I personally believe in the right to bear arms, and I am working on getting my concealed carry. I do not live in a terribly dangerous part of the city, but we have some of the highest murder rates in the state.
A few weeks back I was at my local Walgreens when it was robbed a gun point, while I was in the store, right at checkout. At this time I personally wish I had my gun on me. Not to stop the robbing from happening, but to protect myself if things went sour. Luckily, the cashier gave the man what he wanted and he left without a hitch, but if he were to point that gun at me, as a consumer, I would feel the need for protection. Now, I would not be trigger happy and start shooting, but it would be pulled out if my life is in legitimate danger. Pulling a gun out in defense is not a choice that would be made lightly, proper concealed owners would have thought out the process and even taken in the surroundings. It is taught that you never point the gun at an object you are not willing to kill. As a victim, which in the case of pulling a weapon for protection you are, killing is not something you take lightly or want to do.

My family has concealed carry permits, 9 times out of 10 someone will have a firearm on them. It is at the point where none of us even notice. There have been situations where for us, it may have been needed, but as careful gun owners we access the situation and take all action prior to pulling the gun out. We attempt to have the attacker leave on their own accord prior to showing any sign of having a firearm. This thought process has in fact saved us from a car jacking. We will never pull out a gun unless we are in immediate danger. We may carry a gun, but it is out hope to never need it.

Now, I understand there will continue to be bad seeds, but how is not allowing the proper law abiding citizens the ability to protect themselves in a potentially deadly situation better? Criminals will always find a way to get their hands on weapons, we as a society should be able to protect ourselves from these people. A proper gun owner knows where their firearm is at all times. In the rare case this is lost or stolen, the police should be notified of the situation. This is a careless action of the gun owner and they should take a look if they should further own firearms. This is one of the multiple ways these criminals get their hands on firearms.

In reference to accidental shootings, this is again in reference to carless gun owners. Gun ownership has been taken lightly in this day and age, and people do need to take into consideration what they are taking on before purchase. A gun should be locked up, even more so when a child is in the home. A child, when of age, should be aware of what it is and that it is not something to be played with, touched, ect. Prior to that age, this should be under lock in key to the point where the child could not find the lock box it they tried. I personally was not introduced to firearms until I was 20 years old, prior to that I was terrified and would not go near a gun. I believe with proper knowledge, and training, there would be more responsible gun owners in this time, but since the word “gun” makes people hide in fear and the thought of proper training has been criminalized in the thought process of society.

I apologize for my long response, but this is something I am passionate about, and would love to hear your own thought process. I have personally been in too many situations where I could have been killed, or seriously hurt because of criminals and providing myself with security is something I feel is needed.

**sunnykerr** · 07-05-2014, 11:09 AM

Becca Thank you so much for bringing your point-of-view to this thread.

Ideally, I would love to have people on both sides exchanging as respectfully as you have on this issue. Unfortunately, we just don't have that many people posting on this board, so that doesn't happen.

As you have already sussed out, I don't believe civilians should have the right to carry guns.

To me, it's not a matter of treating everyone as bad seeds as much as the inherent danger of a firearm.

But it's also illegal to carry most firearms where I live and it is legal where you live, so obviously there's a larger societal positioning on that issue at play as well.

**sunnykerr** · 07-07-2014, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Chicago police: Gun laws blamed for weekend killings

Chicago's police chief has blamed weak gun laws after a string of shootings over the holiday weekend that killed at least nine and injured dozens.

"It's Groundhog Day here in Chicago," Superintendent Garry McCarthy told reporters on Monday.

Supt McCarthy said there was a "greater sanction" for gang members to have their gun taken away from them by their own gang than for being arrested.

There were dozens of shooting incidents over the long weekend in the city.

The Chicago Tribune called it the "greatest burst of gun violence Chicago has seen this year" and said the number of fatalities was actually as high as 14.

During a press conference on Monday, Mr McCarthy said investigations were continuing into shots fired by police over the weekend, including two teenagers who were fatally shot after allegedly refusing to put down their weapons.

Mr McCarthy says Chicago is still on track to end the year with fewer murders than last year, but the number of overall shooting incidents is up.

"Everybody asks me what's the difference between New York and Chicago," Mr McCarthy, who previous worked for the New York Police Department, said. "I can tell you very simply - proliferation of firearms.

"When I chase people in New York, they throw away their guns. When we chase people here in Chicago, they keep the guns."

Obviously, this man has more experience than I do, but he also has his opinions.

Mind you, if it's true that being arrested while in the possession of a firearm doesn't have much legal consequences (presumably, we're talking illegal possession here, because it wouldn't be a crime to have a legal weapon in your possession), then that's problematic for police asked to chase suspects, isn't it?

At some point, it'll be better for them to let the criminals get away.

As for those two teenagers who got shot, I hope there's a thorough investigation. The death of children should always be taken seriously and there should be consequences.

Teenagers with guns! That's the crazy world we live in now.

**sunnykerr** · 07-08-2014, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Senate passes vote to promote shooting on public land by 82 to 12

'Sportsmen's act', which also relaxes ammunition regulations, gains support from Democrats in key Republican states

Legislation to promote shooting on public land and relax ammunition regulations sailed through Congress on Monday night after Senators voted overwhelmingly in favour of a key procedural motion.

In stark contrast to gun control legislation, which has been stalled since last April, the bipartisan "sportsmen's act" has been promoted by gun enthusiasts and attracted support from several Democrats facing re-election in Republican-leaning states.

A cloture motion to bring debate to a close and move rapidly toward a vote was passed by 82 senators to 12, all but ensuring the bill – which is matched by a similar measure already passed by the House of Representatives - will soon become law.

The legislation aims "to protect and enhance opportunities for recreational hunting, fishing, and shooting" by stipulating that shooting ranges on public land can be used for target practice and exempting shotgun pellets and bullets from environmental rules designed to limit lead use.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation, one of several pro-gun groups supporting the measure, said "this historic legislation is simply the most important package of measures for the benefit of sportsmen in a generation".

Its list of sponsors closely matches those Democrats facing the stiffest Republican challenges in November's mid-term election, including Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Mark Begich of Alaska, Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Mark Udall of Colorado.

Among the 12 Democrats in mostly safe seats voting against cloture were senators Blumenthal, Feinstein, Menendez, Murphy, Reed, Warren, Merkley, Booker and Hirono.

Oh, come on...

The lead thing alone should have raised alarms.

I mean, I'm not so rabidly anti-gun that I think buckshot is the root of all our problems, but if this doesn't paint a pretty clear picture of how sensible gun-control legislation doesn't have a hope in hell of ever passing in the U.S., then I don't know what will.

**sunnykerr** · 07-15-2014, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Spring shooting: six killed in suburban Houston including four children

Man surrenders to police after two adults and three children died at the scene, with a fourth child later dying in hospital

Four children and two adults have died after a shooting incident at a house in the Houston suburb of Spring that was followed by a car chase and police stand-off that ended with a suspect surrendering on a nearby road.

Live footage from ABC local news showed a man emerge from a car at about 10pm local time with his hands in the air. He walked for a few yards, then after a few seconds he lay down on the ground and was apprehended by armed police.

A statement from the Harris county sheriff’s office in Texas said two adults and three children were found dead by police at the scene. Two children were transported by air to hospital, where one died. The other, a 15-year-old, was in critical condition late on Wednesday, authorities said.

The shootings took place about 20 miles north of downtown Houston at a four-bedroom home in a quiet, middle-class residential neighbourhood near the town of Spring.

During the standoff local news images taken from a helicopter showed numerous police cars blocking the closed end of a cul-de-sac a couple of miles from the scene of the shooting, where the driver of a silver car had been cornered.

The sheriff’s office said members of its Swat team and hostage specialists were sent to negotiate the surrender of an armed suspect.

Mark Herman, a local police officer, told the Houston Chronicle that authorities responding at around 6pm local time found the first victims and were told that a domestic dispute had prompted the incident.

The teenager identified the suspected shooter and told police he was heading to another location to find more relatives. Officers rushed there and intercepted him and a chase began.

"It appears this stems from a domestic issue with a breakup in the family from what our witness has told us," Herman told reporters.

Ron Hickman, the precinct constable, told reporters that the suspect had held a gun to his own head during the more than three-hour standoff. Another officer, Deputy Thomas Gilliland, said those killed were two boys aged four and 14, two girls aged seven and nine, a 39-year-old man and a 33-year-old woman.

The gunman and his wife were estranged and she did not live in Texas, Gilland said. All of the children were theirs and two among the dead were adopted, he said.

It is the second mass shooting in the Houston area since the early hours of last Saturday, when four people were hit when a shooter fired into a crowd during a party at the Houston Caribbean Festival. Two other people were injured in the ensuing panic.

Two mass shootings in the space of a week, children among the dead.

But the status quo works fine, right?

And, if there are flaws, it's in the mental health sector.

It has nothing to do with how easy it is for anyone to get theirs hands on the type of weapon that can do this.

**sunnykerr** · 07-18-2014, 06:07 PM

Quote:

House bill would undo DC's gun control, marijuana laws

WASHINGTON (AP) - If House Republicans have their way, District of Columbia residents won't be allowed to walk the streets with a joint in their pocket, and they will be allowed to carry a semi-automatic rifle.

The GOP-controlled House approved a spending bill Wednesday that would undo the District's strict gun-control laws and its law decriminalizing possession of small amounts of marijuana. The fate of the spending bill and the amendments will likely depend on negotiations between the House, Senate and White House.

The gun amendment was introduced by Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky. Twenty Democrats joined 221 Republicans in voting for it, while four GOP lawmakers voted against it.

A 2008 Supreme Court decision struck down the District's longstanding ban on handgun possession. Residents of the nation's capital must register handguns every three years, complete a safety course and be fingerprinted and photographed. The Massie amendment would get rid of all those, leaving only federal gun-control laws to govern the District.

``It is time for Congress to step in and stop the D.C. government's harassment and punishment of law-abiding citizens who simply want to defend themselves,'' Massie said in a statement.

Congress has the final say over the District's local laws and budget.

Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Democrat who represents the District in Congress but cannot vote on the House floor, called the amendment dangerous and pledged to defeat it.

``Rep. Massie may think D.C. will be one of the most permissive gun jurisdictions in the country where you can openly carry assault weapons in the street and get a gun with no background check but he's wrong,'' Norton said in a statement.

The marijuana amendment, introduced in committee last month by Republican Rep. Andy Harris of Maryland, would block the District from spending any money to liberalize its pot laws.

If enacted, the amendment would put the city in a curious legal position, according to the White House and drug policy groups. Mayor Vincent Gray signed a bill in March that decriminalizes possession of less than one ounce of pot, replacing criminal penalties for simple possession with a $25 fine, one of the nation's lowest.

Because Congress did not pass a resolution disapproving of the local law, it's set to take effect Thursday, and D.C. police are preparing to start issuing citations and inform the public about the policy change. Drug policy experts have voiced concern that the amendment's practical effect would only be to block the District from issuing the $25 fines.

The White House said in a statement that the marijuana amendment undermines states' rights and ``poses legal challenges to the Metropolitan Police Department's enforcement of all marijuana laws currently in force in the District.''

Harris argued that the decriminalization law was bad policy and would lead more children to smoke marijuana, hurting their brain development. Gray and other city leaders responded by calling for a boycott of Harris' district, which includes popular vacation spots on Maryland's Eastern Shore.

I don't understand why people do things like this.

I truly don't.

**sunnykerr** · 07-22-2014, 05:52 PM

Quote:

As hearing on Md. gun-control law approaches, supporter says stats indicate it's working

BALTIMORE — With a federal court hearing looming, a supporter of Maryland's 2013 gun-control law says there are early indications it's helping to reduce fatal shootings.

The Daily Record reported in its Monday edition that overall gun deaths in Maryland fell 24 percent in the first five months of 2014 compared with the same period in 2013. The statistics come from Maryland State Police and the Governor's Office of Crime Control and Prevention.

Vincent DeMarco of Marylanders to Prevent Gun Violence doesn't say the law was entirely responsible for the decrease but he says experience shows that gun control works.

Gun-control opponents say gun-related murders have been declining nationally, independent of Maryland's gun law.

A hearing on whether to dismiss challenges to the law is scheduled Tuesday in Baltimore.

Obviously, it'll never be just the one thing.

But doesn't it seem pretty obvious that, if you remove guns (or, of course, just some of the guns, not all), then you'll wind up with less gun deaths?

Ann357 · 07-22-2014, 07:24 PM

I don't know what the latest gun restriction laws are in Maryland. It seems like a short period of time to make a statistical claim of success.

But that's the beauty of statistics...

*Adora* · 07-22-2014, 08:20 PM

I guess I m not the best person to share her ideas on this topic, considering guns are generally prohibited in Europe and it has been working fine for us, I just see a lot of pro-bearing guns arguments , centering around the right of the civilian to be able to protect himself if things go completely wrong. But here is where my logic fails. Don't organized societies have already their organs and means to do that, aka protect their civilians when things go wrong?i.e. police, justice system etc. And if those institutions aren't say working properly , isn't the next, logical step to establish better controls over them, enhance them and evolve them, and not to just arm the civilians instead?

My view on the matter isn't as simple, but sometimes I think that such a simple argument is enough to indicate the fallacy in pro-bearing guns opinion.

**sunnykerr** · 07-23-2014, 05:02 PM

Yeah, we have guns here, and quite a lot of them if Michael Moore is to be believed, but it's mostly a matter of cops and hunters, you know?

So while I've long come to the point where I accept that, in the United States, it's perfectly rational and normal for a random citizen to walk around with a firearm, it's not something I can completel reconcile either.

But, again, it's just a different culture.

You make an excellent point, Anne, in pointing out that statistics are to be taken with a grain of salt at the best of times, but especially when there hasn't been much time to really give the facts context.

Gun deaths may have gone down compared to this time last year, but perhaps they'll go up next year.

**sunnykerr** · 07-26-2014, 10:13 AM

Quote:

California man, 80, guns down 'pregnant' home intruder: 'I shot her twice'

LONG BEACH, Calif. -- Prosecutors were waiting Friday for the results of a police investigation into the killing of a burglar by an 80-year-old homeowner who says he shot the woman in the back as she fled his home and ran down an alley, the district attorney's office said.

Long Beach resident Tom Greer, 80, told KNBC-TV that the burglar had said she was pregnant and asked Greer not to fire but he shot her twice in the back anyway.

An autopsy later found that Andrea Miller, 28, was not pregnant, said Ed Winter, coroner's spokesman.

"Long Beach police are still investigating," said Sarah Ardalani, spokeswoman for the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office. "It's ongoing and so we're waiting at this point."

Prosecutors filed murder, burglary, robbery and weapons-related charges against 26-year-old Gus Adams, a suspected accomplice of Miller. He was being held on bail of more than $1 million.

A court appearance initially set for Friday was rescheduled for next month.

The murder charge is possible because Adams is accused of participating in a felony that led to a death, said police Chief Jim McDonnell.

Police said Friday that Adams' mother, Ruby Adams, also was involved, and she was arrested Thursday night on suspicion of robbery. They gave no details on her alleged role or the evidence against her.

McDonnell said the homeowner came home around 9 p.m. Tuesday and surprised Adams and Miller, who were trying to break into a safe. They assaulted him, breaking his collarbone, before he was able to get a handgun, the chief said.

Police said he fired shots inside and outside his house.

Under California law, homeowners have a right to protect themselves with deadly force inside their homes and in the immediate vicinity -- such as a patio -- if they feel they are in imminent danger of great bodily injury or death, said Lawrence Rosenthal, a former federal prosecutor who teaches law at Chapman University.

But this case enters a grey area because Greer, by his own account, chased the burglars and fired at them outside his home as they were fleeing, Rosenthal said.

"The problem here is that all this happens very fast and his legal right to use force probably ended just a few seconds before he did use deadly force," Rosenthal said. "So the question is should you charge somebody on the basis of what really was a series of split-second decisions when he's just been robbed and physically assaulted?"

McDonnell declined to say how many shots were fired or to confirm that Miller was shot in the back.

No phone listing was available for Greer and he could not be reached for comment by The Associated Press.

I have no doubt that the old man is gonna get away with it, even though she was running away, he shot her in the back and it was not in the immediate cicinity of his house.

Those aspects of the law tend to be disregarded when it comes to killing intruders.

I get that she wouldn't have been shot if she hadn't been committing a felony, but I still don't understand how that makes it okay to shoot someone period (let alone to death) when they're already running away.

You can already tell, though, that the police are looking for ways to exonorate the old man. "Everything was happening so fast. He's just been robbed and assaulted." They won't confirm the autopsy findings, i.e. that she was shot in the back.

The way they're going on this one seems a foregone conclusion.

**canflam** · 07-26-2014, 03:47 PM

He could still be charged with murder though.


Fan Forum > Archived General Discussion > News & Politics > Right to Bear Arms Discussion #4