Yeah but think about it if he shot the punk. The headlines would have read, "Old man shoots and gives much needed killing to repeat offender who the system let fall between the cracks. Ticker tape parade set for hero." Hey thats the last time I mess with the senoir citizens. NY gun laws are ridiculous. When I lived in PA, they did a background check and gave me the gun 5 minutes later. In NY, you have to take a pistol permit course for either 6 months or a year. So I guess I can't shoot somebody with my heat due to legal repercussions. Thats ok, I'll just use the shotgun.Cardinal said:He got lucky. Having the gun did not prevent him from being robbed. Having the gun did not prevent him from being injured. All it did was raise the potential that he might have been killed. That is true in the vast majority of cases. Owning or carrying a gun does little to improve your safety and more often causes harm. (I am a gun owner.)
As a believer in the right to own guns, I completly agree. I support gun ownership because I grew up in a culture in which guns were present, but respected. Some of my best memories of childhood were of going hunting with my dad, but I learned from day one how to properly handle them.Cardinal said:He got lucky. Having the gun did not prevent him from being robbed. Having the gun did not prevent him from being injured. All it did was raise the potential that he might have been killed. That is true in the vast majority of cases. Owning or carrying a gun does little to improve your safety and more often causes harm. (I am a gun owner.)
And I'll have to totally disagree. Its not an urban vs. rural right, its an constitutional right for all americans.jordanb said:Actually, I believe that there isn't really a place for guns in an urban environment, except maybe for cops. Gun rights should be protected in this country because they are an essential part of rural culture, not because of any romantic notion of wild-west style justice.
They do. The first safety mechanism is a responsible gun owner. The second is an unloaded weapon. The third is a lock now sold with every gun. The fourth is the safety mechanism found on most types of guns.Wulf9 said:I think we miss these key points about gun law.
First, guns should be subject to reasonable product safety laws. That would result in some form of decent safety mechanisms.
Are you willing to extend your "the owner is liable if the gun is stoeln or used by someone else" argument to virtually anything? If a car is stolen and the thief runs someone over, is the owner responsible? How about if he left the keys in the ignition? By the way, "owner" includes auto dealers. If you have a dinner party and one guest uses the knife you gave him to stab another guest, are you responsible? A knife is a weapon or a tool, just like a gun. Maybe that liability should be extended to the department store where the steak knife was purchased.Second, gun owners should be fully responsible for the use of their guns. If a gun is stolen or left around, and then causes death or injury, the owner that did not secure that weapon should be responsible for the damage it did. If stolen, a report to the Police would relieve the owner of responsibility if it was stolen from a secured location. If not, the owner remains responsible. "Owner" includes gun shops.
Those rules are in place at both the federal level and in every state. They cover conditions for ownership, storage, and use. They are quite extensive.Third, gun use should have some basic rules. Did the user create an inappropriate risk to others by use of the gun.
If those were in effect, I say let the old man have his gun.
Just remember Tranplanner, I live next to the border, so I'm not that far away from you. Going across the Peace Bridge anytime soon? aha hahahhhaha ah haa hha hhah. Note I'm just kidding around here.Tranplanner said:The mere fact that someone like you is entitled to bear arms Rumpy Tuna makes me feel very happy that I live in a different country. I mean that in the nicest possible way.
You see, FueledByRamen, for the most part you're right. Pistols are generally for shooting people or targets, although plenty of hunters carry a big caliber sidearm as an emergency backup. But the 2nd Amendment isn't about protecting my right to owns guns for hunting. It's about protecting my right to own guns so I can pop a cap in the ass of the guy who tries to take mine away from me.FueledByRamen said:By the way, NRA or hunting people...what is the point of having a pistol other than shooting at a person or target practice? I have never shot a pistol, so I don't know, but as far as I know, all hunting uses either a shotgun or a rifle, neither of which need to be semiautomatic.
You just made my dayEl Feo said:But the 2nd Amendment isn't about protecting my right to owns guns for hunting. It's about protecting my right to own guns so I can pop a cap in the ass of the guy who tries to take mine away from me.
Whooooaaa, leave old man Smithers alone. What do you do when your that old, get a bodyguard (sorry whitney h)? Hey I wish he would have shot the guy cause obviously the legal system isn't working to keep these people off the streets.Rem said:Of course he should be charged. He could easily have provided a gun to his attacker, someone even less competent than himself to carry a gun.
Well you could collect them?FueledByRamen said:By the way, NRA or hunting people...what is the point of having a pistol other than shooting at a person or target practice?
Uh...you're not? I think you're just uncomfortable with diversity.Planificador Urbano said:
Dude since when was this the right wing freak (sorry right wing freaks) chat room. What, because the topic of gun ownership is involved? That my friend is what you call not being open-minded. I'm not right wing and I'm not left-wing, what I am is being able to make your own choices on your own without having to follow the bylines of some polical party or sect.Planificador Urbano said: