http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110118/ts_ … highschool
More guns = greater public safety.
Gun proliferation? What do you mean exactly?
That has more to do with gang violence probably then gun proliferation.
And why is there gang violence? Poverty! And why is there poverty? Because the left insists on promoting class warfare, rewarding failure, and imposing big burdensome regulations and government on society stifling prosperity. In other words, the policies of the left have cheated the poor out of education and good paying jobs!
I love it when people blame inanimate objects for someone's death. . . .it shows me who is pro government propaganda, or just plain scared.
Man, it's almost like...
... I could kill more people using gasoline and a match...
BAN GASOLINE!! BAN MATCHES!!! BAN GUNS!! BAN SWORDS!!! BAN KNIVES!!! BAN HAMMERS!!!
BAN ANYTHING THAT COULD POSSIBLY BE USED AS A WEAPON!!!
LL is watching for Socialists coming at her from the back yard. She wants to do away with Medicare, and thinks anyone who can afford one should be able to buy a tank.
Evan either wants to ban gasoline and Humanity or he's afraid progressives are going to. Wants to privatize everything and abolish government.The biggest advocate of anarchy on the forum.
What's really scary is that I'm debating candidates for the funny farm. Maybe they will save me a good room.
More Guns does not equal greater public safety.
Quantity does not equal Quality.
There are far too many people that own, and even carry, that practice shooting once per year or less.
I've heard/read a lot of statements from people that are downright dangerous, yet they carry. I don't want these people carrying.
I agree totally. I'm a huge supporter of the 2nd Ammendment. However I DON'T like the idea of so many walking around with handguns. It's ridiculous. There is a time and a place for everything. Political Rally's, Bars, etc are not the place.
I have nothing against guns. I'm a member of the NRA, we have guns in the house, I target shoot and hunt and both my daughters shoot too. We have all had safety training, and we RESPECT our guns. It's not the gun, it's the idiot behind the gun that is dangerous. Nobody needs a gun to kill. People who really want to inflict harm on others will find a way to do so. They can use anything from a bomb to a letter opener, but if they really want guns to do their dirty deeds, they will find some way to get them whether there are gun control laws or not.
You are absolutely right! The left isn't interested in keeping guns out of criminal's hands, they want to disarm law abiding citizens so there can be no resistance when they usher in their socialist regime!
They are all for legalizing pot because the government can't prevent people from getting it, yet they expect us to believe the government can keep guns out of the hands of criminals? LOL They are such liars!
Indeed. Of course you will have a hard time selling that to a lot of people. Some people can't accept any personal responsibilty and therefore don't require it of others.
Except that it takes some courage, strength, skill and determination to kill with the bare hands, rather less to do it with a knife or blunt instrument, and none at all to do it with a gun. Any pathetic snivelling coward can kill with a gun or commit mass murder with an automatic weapon. Why give them the chance?
Of course they are sniveling cowards, if they weren't they would try this at a gun range or a gun show.
But these kind of things never happen at those places.
They only seem to happen at gun-free zones.
You know, schools,college campus,work place, SUPERMARKETS.
If we all carried weapons this would probably happen less.
I don't understand how guns became big business. I didn’t know of any kids with a gun in their locker when I was kid. Some would have just punched it out, thinking that was the way to manhood
I think the success of music promoting the "gangsta" lifestyle brought guns into popularity. Guns have been a part of the U.S. landscape all along, and, like you said, people used to "punch it out" when they had a beef. I had my share of "meet you behind the backstop after school" experiences, as did most American males prior to 1985 or 1990 whenever American boys became too afraid of a real fight.
I think it is cowardice. To fight with your fists, you have to be willing to meet someone on equal grounds, "with what God gave you," etc. By pretending to be "gangsta" what's really happening is that kids don't have to face their own inadequacies, don't have to earn real respect.
I think this directly coincides with our culture's having adopted a "self esteem first" approach to education rather than teaching the skills from which self esteem can be genuinely built. A whole generation of kids expect respect, yet have no way to actually earn it, and worse, no understanding of why they don't feel satisfied with their lives... no grasp of the fact they are suffering from a lack of self respect. Despite what they have been taught to think they have, every one of us knows down deep whether we are worthy of respect or not. No matter what noise and bluster we make outwardly, we all know, whether we'll look at that inner truth for long or not. They know.
I think it is cowardice. To fight with your fists, you have to be willing to meet someone on equal grounds
C-To deal with a bully you learn how to bigger, better, smarter or faster. The worst that ever happen in my entire time in school, was one kid got a broken his arm in a fight. Today, you can sue any Adult that hits you or a kid. In a fight with a kid, you get a couple of lumps you cry over it, your feeling is a little hurt and you go on.
With Guns, you get shot, you die and the game of life is all over, Tell me, what else in the world is more harmful than that.
I'm impressed with your picture on how the brain connects with the back bone, show how that is done
"School district spokesman Robert Alaniz told KCBS-TV that a student brought a gun to school in a backpack and it went off when he dropped it.
Los Angeles Fire Department Capt. Jamie Moore told the Associated Press that two victims have been taken to the hospital, one in serious condition and one in critical condition"
link: http://www.npr.org/2011/01/18/133026317 … l-shooting
The student with the gun in his backpack was an idiot. If he knew the first thing about gun safety, it wouldn't have happened. And what was he thinking putting a loaded gun in his backpack in the first place. Idiot, idiot, idiot! If he were my kid I'd have slapped him silly for being such a jerk and doing such really, really, stupid thing.
LOL! OMG that sounds like a lame HS kid excuse if I ever heard one!
Yea, the reports all over the place. In one story local police are quoted as saying they had a suspect in custody and that 3 people were shot. Now, the school and fire department are saying two were shot. Also there are reports of the shooter taking hostages and holding up in a classroom....who knows.
I don't know...it's much easier to kill with guns if you ask me.
THAT'S why the gun rhetoric is so irresponsible.
Turn it around...if you want to own guns, the reponsibiltiy is on YOU to make sure the rest of us don't suffer for it.
Stop your politicians from egging people on with their "loaded" gun talk.
I haven't heard anyone -- not one single politician or one single hubber on the forums -- suggest completely de-arming America.
NO ONE wants to completely get rid of guns.
No one wants to take your guns away.
Assuming you own your guns legally and they are registered and you store them safely and use them safely, it's all good.
However, there is no reason you should be carrying a concealed weapon (read: GUN) to a political rally. None.
There is no reason to have a gun at school.
The "right to bear arms" is not an absolute under any/all circumstances.
That is all "we" are saying.
"... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be INFRINGED"
Infringe, from the Latin infringere meaning to break or crush. Infringe means to encroach or to enter by gradual steps into the rights of another...
One can argue that requiring a person to purchase a license to possess a gun is itself in infringement and thus unconstitutional!
All gun laws do is punish the law abiding citizens and leave us at the mercy of criminals. We don't need any more laws controlling guns, we need to put violet people away and not make excuses for their actions.
This is exactly the point that is being made with the Tuscon shooting!!
WE are at the mercy of those who have guns and
1. Hate the gvt
2. Hate Obama
3. Hate those of us who like Obama
4. Don't think like you
Your right to own guns-- to me, is like terrorism.
Terrorize an audience to NOT ask questions, to NOT stand up for what you believe. To NOT speak.
Your guns are an instrument of suppression--cause YOU have the deadly force.
Otherwise, why do you need to carry them to a political meeting?
Why carry assault rifles at a parade?
Show of force....against WHO?
From your description it appears that if you own a gun you will automatically do all these things.
Thanks for taking my concerns to heart.
I see the ONLY people who matter in the USA are people who want to own guns.
Funny, you have no problem butting into my privacy when it suits you.
But god forbid, you should have to answer to anyone at all.
Guns Guns Guns Guns.
Hide em, show em, take em to bars, to schools, to court, to congresss, to shopping malls.
And god forbid anyone pisses you off.
Then again, that's not likely to happen with a gun at their face, is it?
Your rights are infringing on my feeling of safety.
Irrational fear isn't protected by the constitution.
Plenty of people are afraid of heights does that mean we should have tall buildings?
No, I actually think you should be able to push people off those buildings....because after all, it's your freedom that counts.
Just remind me to remind you that I have rights too.....and remind me to never speak my mind in public unless I agree with the ones holding the guns.
Just.....how are you any differen than the tyrannical gvt you despise?
Well for one I don't advocate pushing people off buildings, that's a leftist tactic.
I don't think possession of anything should be a crime, so how is that tyrannical or a violation of your rights? If you have a fear of fire should I not be allowed to strike a match? Are you advocating I ask everyone around me what are their fears before I retrieve anything from my pocket?
"Irrational fear isn't protected by the constitution."
Too bad for the Tea Party...
Would it help if each one of your rants were addressed:
Thanks for taking my concerns to heart. Welcome
I see the ONLY people who matter in the USA are people who want to own guns. How did you come to that conclusion?
Funny, you have no problem butting into my privacy when it suits you. butting into your privacy...where...on the net...on this forum?
But god forbid, you should have to answer to anyone at all. Everyone answers to someone...that's a fact
Guns Guns Guns Guns. Yippee-ki-ya...! Sounded good there...
Hide em, show em, take em to bars, to schools, to court, to congresss, to shopping malls. exaggeration on your part. However, i could see where you would be concerned.
And god forbid anyone pisses you off. I hope you weren't referring to me when you said you...but then I have to wonder where you get the thinking that anyone that has a gun is just waiting for people to p_ss them off. In your mind, and my opinion on that, you view anyone with a gun,...as a threat to you. Or am i reading your "over-the-top" response the wrong way?
Then again, that's not likely to happen with a gun at their face, is it? Guess not...that would make perfect sense to me. I wouldn't argue with someone with a gun pointed at my face...i tell 'ya that much...for certain!
Your rights are infringing on my feeling of safety Sorry...how are you going to be safe against someone evil or troubled with a gun...unless someone-somewhere can match their force...with something equal. You gon'na use harsh language on them...or perhaps wait for the police to come to your rescue? Everyday I read where the police are doing an investigation...after a crime was committed...I'm just saying
Yes, I know. I understand.
But you people have to take responsibility then!
If you want a gun---you tell those people in Washington to stop speaking in gun terms!
It is scaring me--I have kids and I am 9/11 truther...did you know, Michael Reagan wants me shot??? And, it is making me feel under military occupation by the fellow citizens of these United States.....not the gvt....but YOU!
Where you live people carry guns all around you, but you can't them because it's illegal.
So you don't fear what you can't see which is why you don't fear losing your freedom, because you can't see it, but like it or not, you and those on the left are supporting it's destruction.
Personally I don't mind the sight of guns...I'd much rather be able to see them and know who has them then not and worse not be able to have one myself.
Ahhhhhhhhh, the old slippery slope argument. Brilliant.
The freedom of speech does not include the freedom to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater, but even so, nobody is required to wear a gag when they go into a crowded theater on the off-chance that someone might shout "Fire."
I don't like the idea of requiring people to waive one of their rights in order to exercise another.
At the same time, however, I really think the focus on the gun debate should be not so much on our right to bear arms, but more on the responsibilities that come with that right.
Like, if I'm going to carry a gun, I'd darn well better not pull it unless I'm afraid that someone's going to try to hurt me or another person, and the gun is the only way I can stop them.
If I'm going to own a gun, I'd darn well better not leave it lying around where someone who isn't me might find it and start messing with it.
If my gun is stolen (despite the many, many precautions I'd darn well better have taken to prevent it being stolen!), I'd darn well better report the theft to my local police department immediately and cooperate fully with their investigation so that the stolen gun can be recovered as quickly as possible.
"If I'm going to own a gun, I'd darn well better not leave it lying around where someone who isn't me might find it and start messing with it."
Good point! Many don't realize that many states and local governments have laws regarding this. Many are NEVER enforced.
"The freedom of speech does not include the freedom to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater,"
This is utter nonsense. You DO have a right to yell fire in a theater -- you just choose to waive that right by entering into a contract with the PRIVATELY owned movie theater. The terms and conditions of buying that ticket are that you won't cause panics (except in a real emergency).
The Supreme Court -- Oliver Wendell Holmes specifically -- has used the blurring of private and public ownership to take away your freedoms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_f … ed_theater
Wait a minute mighty mom
I said it in many ways on the thread you were on,
Even wrote two hubs on the gun nonsense, and I haven’t been shot by a gun once………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….yet
Yes, you have said all of the above. You didn't say it with your words, but your evil socialist intentions are there for all to see.
The series of tubes that make up the webernet convey dark agendas and deeply-hidden communist tendencies as well as words.
Please stop trying to take our guns, or at the very least, leave our country and go live in your beloved Cuban paradise.
Yes, some odd quotes were from other americans who know more about guns in American than I
I enjoyed working the States and had many of my closest friends there. Also made half my money in America for over 30 year.
Then, because I refuse GW Bush and gang to build a full ugly war slaughter of lives with the most dangerous weapons known to mankind.
All my permit were taken away and I was refused to work ever again in the USA. Tell me Ron, of what part in your conscious tell you that my action were wrong and their action were right.
Micheal Moore is far more front line gun control brave
than I will ever be, should he be deported too.
When Cuban wages are like $ 8 a month, hardly a middle ground solution like Canada, what freedom is in buying just one brand of anything.
"Micheal Moore is far more front line gun control brave
than I will ever be, should he be deported too."
Thats just one of many things that should happen to Michael Moore.
He specks for the little guy, do you trust politicians and lawyers to do it for the little guy?
Access to guns is obviously a factor in gun crimes.
There are plenty of idiots in every nation but easy access to guns for idiots is likely to cause problems.
In the world murder table, the US is placed at number 24, nicely positioned between Armenia and Bulgaria.
Being the highest placed developed nation isn't something to be proud of.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_m … per-capita
Slow down,lady_love. Slow down and read before you hit submit!
You do not improve your argument one bit with careless misspellings!
Are you really suggesting that we put "violet" people away? Surely not.
Then again, "violet" is very close to "lavender" which is the color associated with "gays."
Given how you have shown yourself to think, it is not implausible to believe that is what you meant.
Not likely, but not completely implausible
I once had my safety infringed while I was working for a living...someone with a nervous twitch put a .38 caliber snub nose pistol in my face...and wanted $$$ and merchandise from the place I was working. How best do you think...would be the way to prevent this in the future?
Once the guy already has a gun pointed at you, there's not much you can do. You'd better give him what he wants. Go for your own gun and he'll almost certainly shoot you before you can pull it out, chamber a round, flick off the safety, and shoot him first.
How can you prevent violent criminals from robbing your workplace? You can't. You can arm yourself, sure, but unless you develop a keen sense of precognition, you won't be able to tell if a shifty-looking guy is getting ready to rob you or just generally a nervous-looking person.
I guess you could install metal-detectors at the doors to your workplace, but surely you wouldn't want to infringe upon the 2nd Amendment rights of your business's patrons, would you?
Jeff: You mentioned..."about the pointing the gun at you-not much you can do". True Story:http://www.click2houston.com/news/26169984/detail.html
LL I only know about you what you reveal through your writings here. Your representation of your thoughts and values is yours to control.
Fear of guns is not irrational in any way. Guns are lethal weapons. They are used to KILL things and people. If you are not afraid of a gun's power you should be!
As to your example. You said, "Plenty of people are afraid of heights does that mean we should have tall buildings?" (sic).
Did you mean to say that we should NOT have tall buildings?
And you wonder why people have a hard time understanding your points.
No, I just fear an armed political group who wield their guns as a way to make the rest of us subservient.
Like our standing army, or our national guard or the police?
No, I fear the radical right. No joke.Tea-Party, et al.
I'm sure you all saw that there was a bomb placed at an MLK parade.
The Hutaree Myspace carries the slogan “violence solves everything”
Kind of makes me wonder ....why do politicians and talk-radio heads even USE violent metaphors?
I'll bet money a leftist group is respnsible for that bomb!
Of course, just like Democrats had Gifford's shot so the Tea-party could be blamed, and they could shut down righty-talk radio...yeah I heard all about it....Russsshhhhhhh.
Just remember this: Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Another needless shooting at a L.A. high school. This time apparently accidental.
A California high school student was shot in the head and a second student was struck in the neck today when a gun inside a backpack accidentally went off in a school hallway, police said.
VIDEO: A Florida man upset that his wife was fired opened fire on the school board.
Watch: Inside Florida School Board Shooting
VIDEO: 17-year-old student turned the gun on himself after killing the vice principal.
Watch: Fatal Shooting at Nebraska School
Shooting in Colorado
Watch: Teacher Hero in School Shooting
Gardena High School, south of downtown Los Angeles, was promptly locked down and heavily armed police carried out a dragnet through the sprawling campus before arresting a sophomore. A gun was also recovered, Lt. Steve Pendergrast, spokesperson for Gardena Police, told ABC affiliate KABC-TV.
The shooting was reported at around 10:40 a.m., Pacific time, by a teacher.
A gun inside a backpack unintentionally discharged, Los Angeles Unified School District spokesperson Robert Alaniz said.
"It's our understanding that this morning during passing period, the suspect either dropped it or hit it against something injuring two students," Alaniz said.
Gardena police said that the two students were wounded by one bullet. A 15-year-old girl was shot in the head and is in critical condition, KTLA reported. A 15-year-old boy was shot in the neck and is in critical condition, KTLA said.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/california-sch … d=12640474
I'd like to remind everyone that using gasoline is much more destructive than using a gun. In fact, burning gasoline yields more energy per mass than TNT.
For example: Maniac McGee wants to kill people. He buys some gasoline and puts it into a 2 liter. He also buys a road flare. He attaches metal nails and shrapnel to the 2 liter. He also attaches the road flare to the 2 liter bottle, and goes to a political rally with a big jacket. 30 minutes in, he lights it and throws it. Game Over.
You can turn anything into a weapon.
... So, stop talking about the evil of guns, and start realizing that it was the specific human in question who chose to use an inanimate object as a weapon.
OR! We could take the "ban weapons" approach. The end result will be to staple everyone down to the ground to prevent them from killing people.
And a 15-yearl-old (read: MINOR) student has a RIGHT to be carrying a gun in his backpack at school?
Am I understanding the argument correctly?
He was just protecting himself against bullies??
We have just as much right to be safe from your guns as you do to own them.
Or does the second amendment trump life itself?
Buy gasline. Put it in a two liter. put nails on the bottle. but a rag around the two liter. Ignite the rag with a match or lighter, and throw it into a crowd.
Using your "ban weapons" logic, we now have to ban "2 liter bottles", ban "gasoline", ban "Nails", ban "rags", and ban "matches" and "lighters".
Fun fact: Gasoline pumps out more energy (at least double) than TNT when ignited! But it can be bought by anyone!!
BAN GASOLINE!! BAN RAGS!! BAN GUNS!!
How Many Deaths are Enough? Bob Herbert
On April 22, 2008, almost exactly one year after 32 students and faculty members were slain in the massacre at Virginia Tech, the dealer who had sold one of the weapons used by the gunman delivered a public lecture on the school’s campus. His point: that people at Virginia Tech should be allowed to carry concealed weapons on campus.
Eric Thompson, owner of the online firearms store that sold a .22-caliber semiautomatic handgun to the shooter, Seung-Hui Cho, did not think that his appearance at Virginia Tech was disrespectful or that his position was extreme. He felt so strongly that college students should be allowed to be armed while engaged in their campus activities that he offered discounts to any students who wanted to buy guns from him.
Thompson spun the discounts as altruistic. He told ABCNews.com, “This offers students and people who might not have otherwise been able to afford a weapon to purchase one at a hefty discount and at a significant expense to myself.”
The sale to Cho was not Thompson’s only unfortunate link to a mass killer. His firm sold a pair of 9-millimeter Glock magazines and a holster to Steven Kazmierczak, a 27-year-old graduate student in DeKalb, Ill., who, on the afternoon of Feb. 14, 2008, went heavily armed into an auditorium-type lecture hall at Northern Illinois University. Kazmierczak walked onto the stage in front of a crowd of students and opened fire. He killed five people and wounded 18 others before killing himself.
We’ve allowed the extremists to carry the day when it comes to guns in the United States, and it’s the dead and the wounded and their families who have had to pay the awful price. The idea of having large numbers of college students packing heat in their classrooms and at their parties and sporting events, or at the local pub or frat house or gymnasium, or wherever, is too stupid for words.
Thompson did not get a warm welcome at Virginia Tech. A spokesman for the school, Larry Hincker, said the fact that he “would set foot on this campus” was “terribly offensive” and “incredibly insensitive to the families of the victims.”
Just last week, a sophomore at Florida State University, Ashley Cowie, was shot to death accidentally by a 20-year-old student who, according to authorities, was showing off his rifle to a group of friends in an off-campus apartment complex favored by fraternity members. A second student was shot in the wrist. This occurred as state legislators in Florida are considering a proposal to allow people with permits to carry concealed weapons on campuses. The National Rifle Association thinks that’s a dandy idea.
The slaughter of college students — or anyone else — has never served as a deterrent to the gun fetishists. They want guns on campuses, in bars and taverns and churches, in parks and in the workplace, in cars and in the home. Ammunition everywhere — the deadlier, the better. A couple of years ago, a state legislator in Arizona, Karen Johnson, argued that adults needed to be able to carry guns in all schools, from elementary on up. “I feel like our kindergartners are sitting there like sitting ducks,” she said.
Can we get a grip?
The contention of those who would like college kids and just about everybody else to be armed to the teeth is that the good guys can shoot back whenever the bad guys show up to do harm. An important study published in 2009 by researchers at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine estimated that people in possession of a gun at the time of an assault were 4.5 times more likely to be shot during the assault than someone in a comparable situation without a gun.
“On average,” the researchers said, “guns did not seem to protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. Although successful defensive gun uses can and do occur, the findings of this study do not support the perception that such successes are likely.”
Approximately 100,000 shootings occur in the United States every year. The number of people killed by guns should be enough to make our knees go weak. Monday was a national holiday celebrating the life of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. While the gun crazies are telling us that ever more Americans need to be walking around armed, we should keep in mind that more than a million people have died from gun violence — in murders, accidents and suicides — since Dr. King was shot to death in 1968.
We need fewer homicides, fewer accidental deaths and fewer suicides. That means fewer guns. That means stricter licensing and registration, more vigorous background checks and a ban on assault weapons. Start with that. Don’t tell me it’s too hard to achieve. Just get started.
"Using your "ban weapons" logic,"
I'd like to hear that, since I never said it...
But you gun people have banned logic.
Do you know, I have to go through more trouble to hear Howard Stern say "poop" than I do to buy a killing weapon?
The NRA p-owns America!
Cars are easy to buy. You can do just as much, if not far more, damage with a car than you can a gun. And people use them all the time to kill people, on purpose too, not just accidents and DUI. We should ban cars first.
And chef knives are even easier to buy - and way cheaper. Let's ban them too
When chef kinves are outlawed, only outlaw chefs will have knives.
How many thousands were killed last year with chef knives?
Only for chefs...
Oh, and I also don't support an individuals freedom to be a mass murderer. Somehow the gun lobby has inserted that into the bill of rights.
Suicides account for the largest number of deaths atributed to firearms. Most shootings/firearm injuries are accidental.
Oh there are lots of injuries due to chefs knives, more than gun injuries. In the UK there has been worry over the increase in knife violence. Prompting some to ask for a ban on all pointed knives.
Regarding violent crime the stats are nearly even for both knives and firearms. 73% of all violent crime does NOT involve a weapon.
Firearms are the second most common weapon used in the commission of violent crime, accouting for 8%. Followed by knives at 6%. The leader are all other weapons at 15%. Gun crime has been steadily declining since 1994.
Knife injuries and knife related violence simply doesn't get the attention in the US. Apparrently the UK is watching it a little closer.
Statistics (or even a shred of plausibility) to back this up?
I would post some links, but I know you don't really care about an answer to your question. You only asked the question because it gives you a rush to be snide for your cause.
Had you any real interest, you would have taken the .0000005 seconds required to type in "vehicular assault" or "car as weapon" or "ran down victim with car" or any number of similar phrases, all of which will bring up pages and pages of proof in Google that cars are used all the time to commit murder, mass murder and assassinations. Which, obviously you don't want to know because you already have the "right" answer and everyone else is a moron to be condescended to.
The Detroit newspapers have become crime blotters with daily reports of drive-by shootings, family murder-suicides, cops killed, students murdered, accidental shootings, drug wars and so forth. For some reason I don't recall seeing a single case where a gun was used successfully for self protection. I'm sure there are cases, but they are scarce as hen's teent as far as I can see.
Here's one example of many from today's paper in which a gun was used for protection but turned into manslaughter when the home owner chased the unarmed intruder and shot him with his hands up.
Tigh Croff, a Detroit homeowner who chased down and shot a would-be burglar 13 months ago, was convicted this afternoon of manslaughter and a firearm offense for the slaying of Herbert Silas.
A Wayne County Circuit Court jury took less than two hours to find Croff, 32, guilty. Judge Michael Hathaway set a sentencing for Feb. 18 and allowed Croff to remain free on bond.
Croff faces a mandatory two years for using a firearm in the commission of a felony and up to 15 years for the shooting.
Late last year, another jury deadlocked in the case and Hathaway reduced the charge from second-degree murder to manslaughter over the prosecution’s objections.
After the December 2009 shooting, Croff told police he came home and surprised Silas and another man trying to break into his house. He said he chased Silas down who turned and gave him “that mercy look.”
“I told him he was going to die and I shot him,” Croff told police.
Read more: Croff convicted in slaying of would-be intruder | freep.com | Detroit Free Press http://www.freep.com/article/20110118/N … z1BXT9I26N
http://www.freep.com/article/20110118/N … e-intruder
Well, part of that is because our society favors the excuse over the crime. Someone rapes some kids, we don't like it, but, since his father molested him as a kid, we accept that his molesting other kids was inevitable and don't make any rash decisions.
Same with the guys breaking into the house in your example. Yes, they were going to steal his stuff. Had the homeowners wife caught them in the act without a gun, she would probably have been raped or murdered, but, since the homeowner, in a rage over having been violated in the sanctity of his home--the one tiny space we can pretend we aren't being abused by corporations, corrupt government and shiftless takers miling society for free, he, in his rage--defended himself, clearly he is the criminal, and this serves as perfect evidence why people should not own guns. That evil bastard tried to defend his home and his emotions were raging. What a horrible man he obviously is.
All these goddamn taxpaying citizens who can be so easily incensed by having their homes violated by a-holes are truly a problem. What kind of country tolerates the killing of invading marauders? We are truly a barbarous nation if we think people trying to violate us should be punished. Turn the other cheek. When they rape your wife, offer your daughter. That's the right way to do it. Don't shoot them.
In addition, the reason you can't find many examples of people successfully defending themselves is because people can't defend themselves with guns because they are not allowed to carry them or keep them in a defensive state. If you have kids or even the most remote chance that kids will possibly ever be in your home, you have to lock your guns up in a locked safe, away from the bullets, and with a trigger lock in some states. This means you have a key somewhere, two or three maybe, and must, when the rapist or murderer enters you home, ask the murder to hold on for a second while you run downstairs, get your keys, run back to the room that you keep your guns in, open the locked safe or cabinet, pull the gun out, then go to the place you keep the ammo, unlock that, load the clip, put it in the gun, then go back to the criminal and defend yourself. Seldom are criminals willing to let you equalize the situation in that manner.
Yeah, of course nobody defends themselves with guns in this country that you can cite as an example. It can't happen with our ridiculous perpetrator-favoring PC society unless the law abiding citizen is breaking the law with their legal guns, or if they are risking being put in prison for child endangerment for not putting their protection behind 15 minutes of security from accidents.
America is ridiculous and utopian, and the belief in fairies and unicorns bringing peace and love is undoing the nation that grew strong by being strong.
But you don't have to do much of anything to buy 20 gallons of gasoline.
That much gasoline could cause billions of dollars of property damage. easily.
And let's not forget the pen is mightier than the sword.
So should we ban all computers and smart phones?
If you request that guns be banned simply because jerk-nuggets use them to kill other people...
... then you're arguing that we should all be stapled to the ground to prevent ourselves from doing anything bad to anyone.
It's impossible to ban malicious behavior by banning objects.
As someone who believes in people protecting themselves I do believe that having easy asscess to gun has in fact created more of a problem then it solved.
It's easy enough to compare the time period 60 or 70 years ago when getting guns were much harder and even though people still had crime they didn't have as much or as deadly as it is now.
Any coward or nutjob can pull a trigger 20, 30 feet way but having only your bare hands to face down an opponent, well that might have been one of the reasons the streets were just a bit safer then.
I think the FCC is way ahead on this chef knives thing.
Has anyone seen an ad or an infomercial for the amazing Ginsu knife recently? I thought not! It's been removed from the airways because it is simply too dangerous!
Jim, that question belongs in the "most ridiculous lies you've heard about your party" thread.
Repeating the #1 lie doesn't make it any truer.
Great news for all those who have been so concerned about the Obama family's worship habits.
I read that they attended church on Sunday.
The congregation even sang "Happy Birthday" to Michelle.
Why must you parrot LaLo so shamelessly?
You're a clever fellow. Surely you can do better than that?
If she has asked the question then I applaud her.
It is a legitimate question, we as citizens are given the right to keep and bear arms. There are many here who would rather that right be taken from us, there are many here who would have the right to eat what we want taken from us.
Those people come from your side.
Your side wants to legislate everything we do, your side is not on the side of individual freedom.
So the question is why do you hate freedom?
I have always supported the freedoms you hold most dear.
Freedom to waste your time posting B.S.
Freedom to raise and keep gerbils wherever you choose.
Freedom to worship Palin, Angle et al, during your "alone time".
The freedom to arm yourself with military weapons in preparation for Reagan's second coming will however, be subject to some limitations.
"The freedom to arm yourself with military weapons in preparation for Reagan's second coming will however, be subject to some limitations."
What exactly is a military style weapon?
At some point the military adopted the weapons of private citizens.
The Thompson for example was offered for sale to civilians before the Army bought it.
See what I mean? You are clever when you put your mind to it.
You still don't make a whole lot of sense, but at least you are showing some creativity.
The statistic about suicides accounting for the largest number of deaths attributed to firearms poses an interesting moral dilemma.
Since suicide is a sin (according to Christians)
wouldn't we, as a society, want to do everything in our power to prevent our fellow from sinning?
Limit firearms=reduce suicides=reduce sin=God is happy
In a country with 308 million people it's irresponsible to think "individual freedom" could be absolute or even close.
Like it or not, people require rules and laws to prevent mayhem and harm to others.
I think we agree on that.
Excuse me. I need to go vomit.
Worship Sharron Angle in his alone time?
Your perverted view of the Bill of Rights leads to this.
The Tea Party's vision for America
(except with white people)
My wish that those who take my rights die is not a threat.
It is a wish.
Jim can now be called a Terrorist because he stood up for his rights.
I love that you pointed out the idiocy of "terrorism" labels!
In the U.S. for 2006, there were 30,896 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 16,883; Homicide 12,791; Accident 642; Legal Intervention 360; Undetermined 220. This makes firearms injuries one of the top ten causes of death in the U.S. The number of firearms-related injuries in the U.S., both fatal and non-fatal, increased through 1993, declined to 1999, and has remained relatively constant since. However, firearms injuries remain a leading cause of death in the U.S., particularly among youth (CDC, 2001) (CDC, 2006).
TEN years of suicide data after John Howard's decision to ban and then buy back 600,000 semi-automatic rifles and shotguns has had a stunning effect.
The buyback cut firearm suicides by 74 per cent, saving 200 lives a year, according to research to be published in The American Law and Economics Review.
You have mixed some accurate information from the CDC with some inaccurate data NOT supported by the source you state(CDC). Firearm related deaths are NOT one of the top ten causes of death in the US.
The 10 leading causes of death in the U.S.
Heart disease: 616,067
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 135,952
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 127,924
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 123,706
Alzheimer's disease: 74,632
Influenza and Pneumonia: 52,717
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 46,448
If in 2006 30,896 died from firearms and more than half were self inflicted, then firearms are the least of our worries.
I suppose you put guns in the accidental catagory ?
It's about the fear and control of the masses that makes guns more of a danger.
Remember in the fear in the first Jaws Movie.
Well, farm pigs kill more people than sharks.
Don't backpedal, Jim.
Your statement was declarative.
Its meaning, as stated, is unambiguous and it IS a threat.
If some Patriot Act monitor happened to be checking in on HP forum threads and saw that I assure you they would NOT interpret to mean, "I wish that those who take my rights would die."
They would read it as you've written it.
As a threat.
Perhaps you're waiting for your compatriots to come rallying around you.
I'm sure they will be here in good time to defend you.
I'm done talking to you. I don't engage with terrorists.
The number of firearms injuries remains high in the United States, compared with most of the rest of the world. Firearm suicide rates are strongly impacted by the rate of gun ownership. (Kaplan and Geling, 1998) There is a positive correlation between homicide rates and availability of guns in developed nations. (Hemenway and Miller, 2000) The number of firearms in the hands of private citizens continues to grow each year at a rate far exceeding that of the population as a whole. It might even be said that Americans live in a "gun culture" based upon traditions and behaviors well-entrenched in our society.
Jim Hinter your logic is pathetic! The principle use of a motor car is to move people the principle use of a firearm is to kill life.
America is the principle manufacturer of weapons around the world and as such is responsible by default for the deaths of millions of people in Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, Palenstine you name it ! the record is more than shameful
Its not pathetic its unimpeachable.
The US manufactures more weapons than anyone? Could be, I don't know.
But the favorite weapon for most of the world is an AK 47, so using your logic Kalashnikov is responsible for the most death around the world by firearms.
The manufacturers are the principal source of NRA funds. NRA long ago ceased being an organization of hunters and target shooters.
I feel the need to explain Ron Montgomery's comment that you quoted about communists and the network and going to Cuba.
That comment was directed at me. It was clearly tongue-in-cheek, from one "comrade" in the "please let's end the gun craze" to another, so to speak.
I fear you took his words out of context.
Ron's a good guy. He uses humor to make his points.
He would be in agreement with your viewpoint, I believe (although I cannot and should not speak for him).
You have my permission to clarify any sarcastic comment that gets misunderstood. I understand Ron's jokes, but I'm strange, too.
Usefully Ron makes good sense, for it being under my post, I was wonder if I standing so alone surrounded by a lot of double morals on gun control
From travelling around, I've had guns pointed at me, more than all weapons combined, for no reason. Must be an insecure manhood thing.
Go for it, Mighty Mom
Dear Lord, Doug.
When you start looking to ME to clarify misunderstood sarcasm, you really are in trouble !
Please tell me they're not getting to ya!
Do you need us to de-program you? LOL!
You think so too? I've had a secret crush on him for years.
And Dick Cheney is a helluva nice guy, too.
And Rush? I couldn't think of anyone I'd rather visit Costa Rica with .
Oooh, Castlepaloma, you are going to be hammered (better than shot, I guess) by people pointing out the high percentage of female NRA members.
Evan, Jim didn't "stand up" for anything.
He "wished" death on elected officials.
Actually, if you read his exact words, they were "death to..."
a call to action, a threat.
I didn't point out the idiocy of terrorism labels.
That is your interpretation of what you think I said.
actually, he DID stand up for something.
He stood up against people (like many on these forums) who are trying to take away his rights.
He said "Death to those who try and take our rights."
I'm sure that you only disagree with him because he's talking about guns.
What if Glenn Beck became president and decided that everyone had to be a Christian (freedom of religion)? What if he declared that you must never say anything negative about him (free speech)?
You would DEFINITELY agree with Jim then.
But you are merely trying to take the moral high ground NOW.
And you DID point out the idiocy of terrorism labels. He was INCITING and using VIOLENT IMAGERY in order to influence people POLITICALLY. That's THE definition of terrorism.
I will not be beguiled by your sophistry, trickstress!
I believe I said "Death to those who try and take our rights."
That includes anybody.
You said Congress, thanks for at least admitting what we have been saying all along.
What about this? Something to do with gun proliferation? Does this bother any of you Second Amendment fans?
Still mourning the shooting spree that claimed a 9-year-old girl’s life, Arizona is bracing for the trial of another accused child-killer: a female Minuteman. Terry Greene Sterling reports.
Early on the morning of May 30, 2009, Raul Flores heard a knock at the door of his Arivaca, Arizona, home. When he opened it, he found a man and a woman claiming to be law-enforcement officers in search of fugitives. Minutes later, the man shot Flores to death. Then, authorities say, he pumped three bullets into Flores’ wife, Gina Gonzalez, who survived but played dead. “Why did you shoot my mom?” Gonzalez’s 9-year-old daughter, Brisenia Flores, asked the gunman, according to prosecutors. Those were her last words. The man put a gun to her head, fired off two rounds, and killed her.
Article - Sterling Trial Minuteman Shawna Forde, center, is escorted by Pima County police authorities in Tucson, Arizona on June 12, 2009; inset: Brisenia Flores. (Jamar Younger, Arizona Daily Star / AP Photo) The chilling murders devastated residents of tiny Arivaca. Now, the community is bracing for those wounds to be reopened. On Friday, opening arguments are scheduled to begin in the trial of the accused ringleader of the bloody home invasion: Shawna Forde, a notorious nativist with a checkered past who moved to Arizona in recent years to join up with the Minuteman movement. Adding another layer of heartache to the proceedings, the trial is taking place in Tucson, a city still grieving over the recent massacre that left six dead and 13 wounded, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.
During a hearing last week, Forde’s lawyer noted similarities in the two tragedies: the slaughter of two 9-year-old girls (Christina-Taylor Green, in the Tucson rampage), accusations that the alleged killers had ties to right-wing extremists, and the involvement of the outspoken Pima County sheriff, Clarence Dupnik. Forde’s trial in Pima County Superior Court, in fact, was briefly postponed as a result of the Tucson killings.
Sheriff Dupnik described Forde as “at best, a psychopath” and called the murder of Brisenia “one of the most despicable acts that I have heard of.”
Dupnik, who gained worldwide fame after the Tucson shootings for condemning strident right-wing “rhetoric,” didn’t mince words in the wake of the Flores murders either. He described Forde as “at best, a psychopath” and called the murder of Brisenia “one of the most despicable acts that I have heard of.” (Lately, however, Dupnik has remained silent about the Flores slayings, and calls and emails to his spokesman seeking comment were not returned.)
Forde faces first-degree murder charges, along with two alleged accomplices: Jason Bush, a white supremacist who authorities suspect is a serial killer and who was recently implicated in the murder of a Mexican man in Washington state, and Albert Gaxiola, an Arivaca resident who has served time in prison for drug dealing. Bush has pleaded not guilty and is scheduled for trial in March; Gaxiola has pleaded not guilty and is headed to trial in June. Though the Pima County Attorney’s Office didn’t return calls for comment, prosecutors are expected to argue that Forde planned the home invasion with the intention of stealing drugs and money from Raul Flores to fund her border-policing activities. Forde, who faces the death penalty if convicted, says she’s innocent and claims she wasn’t even at the murder scene. (Her lead attorney, Eric Larson, declined to comment.)
Of course its disturbing and horrific! If you're trying to tie this to right wing rhetoric or political discourse that would be stretching beyond imagination!
As far as I know the Minuitmen aren't fuzzy-minded, commy prevert liberals!
I think its pretty clear what we need to do.
We need to institute laws that say "any thinking other than the way Ralph thinks is illegal."
When someone violates the Ralph law we beat them senseless with an Iraqi shoe.
Yes - pretty clear.
You should institute laws to protect innocent people instead of gun toting morons and the companies that make money from the misery that guns cause per se, and that includes the companies that make their money from starting wars so that they can sell you big boys weapons via Cheney and Bush.
Ive never bought a weapon via Cheny and Bush.
Can I get a good deal?
As an American citizen you hae bought thousands of tons of them - unless you don't earn enough to pay tax.
Suuuuuuuure, weapons didn't exist before Cheny and Bush.
Ive also bought tons of food to be distributed around the globe.
Stop... you can't argue with those that rail against the evil of government on one hand and then argue for more of it on the other! Im sure China is much more humanitarian than the USA.
At the moment this is definately the case. I guess as the US continues is slide into debt and China keeps on growing things will change a bit - but I live in hopes that as number one in the world it won't be hard for them to be better at it than the US.
Lol oh yeah China is a beacon of freedom and light which explains why everyone is clamoring to get in!
You should get out more into the real world and see what is going on these days.
There is probably a sweat shop hiring right now.
Yeah, and Michelle Obama has partnered up with them.
Didn't Obama say he wouldn't set foot in a wal-mart during the campaign?
Why yes he did.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20 … initiative
and this, and China, has exactly what to do with right wing morons stocking up on guns ?
Yes or they are harvasting the organs of some political prisoner and selling them to improve the economy in some rural farm town.
The fact that the suspects of this home invasion and murder are somehow tied to the minuteman movement is clearly coincidental. Would you conclude this to be an al queda attack if the suspect was muslim?
I don't think anyone disagrees with you that this story horrific, like each and every anecdote you will ever find of children dying is. However, the point that I keep trying to convey, albeit endlessly without success, is right there in your own article: "at best, a psychopath."
The guy was a psychopath. His mind was broken, and he wanted to do violence. So he killed those kids. Do you honestly, in your truest, most sincere, deeply reflective, respecting of integrity in genuine debate, inner self, believe that that man would not have killed anyone if he hadn't had a gun? Do you really, truly believe that he would have been perfectly fine, and not thought of a knife or a bat or just strangulation and beating to vent his violence?
The guy was a psychopath. Psychopath's are the problem. Not the weapons they use.
by My Esoteric 2 months ago
For the 22nd time just this year, somebody opened fire on an America school campus. While most of the others had an AR-15 as the gun of choice, this one was accomplished with a shotgun and revolver. In my mind, that changes the discussion somewhat based on what facts come out.In terms...
by Susan Holland 4 years ago
Do you believe the horrific school shootings are being used as an excuse for gun control?Are there other factors that should be focused on to help prevent other tragedies? Parenting? Discipline? Positive and negative reinforcement? Mental health care? Is it the guns or the people that...
by Michele Travis 5 years ago
Some people already have a lot of guns. So if gun laws are passed, how will the government actually get guns away from people. Some guns are registered and some are not, how could the government find out, and how could the government actually take guns away from people?
by David 5 years ago
What is so bad about background checks for gun purchases?I have seen many complaints about expanding background checks for gun purchases but I haven't seen reasons attached to the complaints.Society has to go through tests to get things like drivers licenses before they can operate a vehicle, why...
by SpanStar 4 years ago
A 1-year-old baby girl shot to death by a Gunman who was shooting at a babysitter carrying the child running away.http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08 … lence?liteI wonder what other countries think of a country who continuously incur innocent men, women and children murdered needlessly...
by Ralph Schwartz 2 years ago
Until 1989, there were only a few school shootings in which more than two victims were killed. This was despite widespread ownership of — and familiarity with — weapons and an absence of “gun-free zones.” Many rural areas had a long tradition of high-school students going hunting in...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|