Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I would like harsher penalties on gun deaths, even in self defense people should shoot to maim.
Shoot to maim in self-defense? First, when guns are used in self-defense, they are usually used within seconds of the incident starting, most people don't have time to consciously decide whether or not to shoot to kill or shoot to maim. Second, the problem is the torso is the most likely place to be shot since it is the largest target and not as mobile as a limb or even the head. Third, if you intentionally shoot to maim (especially if you admit it), you will probably be facing criminal and civil charges. The prosecutors and tort lawyers will use the fact that you aimed for the kneecaps as evidence that you did not believe your life was at stake and even that you were possibly the aggressor.
Harsher penalties on gun deaths and unprovoked shootings. If you own a gun and some kid steals it and shoots people (like Columbine or Mt Morris) you get held responsible as well as the kid. If you can't control your gun and your irresponsibility results in the death/injury of someone else, this is a right you don't deserve.
Why should the method that is used to kill someone result in a harsher penalty in and of itself? Why should someone who shoots someone in the head face harsher penalties than someone who slits another person's throat with a knife or beats them to death? I'd like to see the logic behind that.
You also believe that if someone illegally steals a gun from someone, that the victim of theft should face the same legal ramifications as the one who committed the crime? You have a weird concept of justice...
I'll tell you about something that happened not too long ago. There was this guy who was a former competitor* of my mother's husband (you'll find out why he is a former competitor soon enough). He owned a small security company that was licensed for armed guards. Two of his former employees broke into his house and stole several firearms and used them to rob a small state government office (genius, I know). They ended up getting busted and going to prison for two years. In your idea of justice, he should have gone to prison with those two idiots because they managed to break into his stash of guns.
*Those two employees served their time in prison and got out. After a few months on the outside they found their former employer while he was doing a security patrol. They forced him into a small bathroom, tied his hands around the toilet, then they beat him with a baseball bat and a hammer and stabbed him repeatedly. They then left his body and went over to his house and killed his wife in the same manner. Don't worry, the murdering scumbags did not use a single gun in the double homicide, so it must not be that big of a deal.
Guns and gun rights just seem like a quick fix to bigger problems. Lets look at other nations that have lots of firearms, and find out why they aren't shooting each other up and see if we can take an idea from that playbook.
Do you mean nations that "don't" have a lot of firearms? I'm just checking if that is a typo. If you mean nations that DO NOT have a lot of firearms, I would like to point out that there are other factors that result in a lower homicide rate. Such as lower levels of poverty, cultural factors (gang and prison culture often require violent retribution for relatively minor acts), lack of large disenfranchised racial groups, and economic factors might play more of a role than whether or not people have access to guns?
If you mean nations that DO have a lot of firearms (Canada and Finland come to mind), you can ask the same sort of questions. You can also ask more complex questions about the US. What groups are more likely to kill someone? What were the most likely reasons for those murders? Are legal gun owners more likely to murder someone than someone else? What are the odds of dying in a Columbine or post office massacre type incident (if all other murders were to disappear and left only the clock tower climbing set to end human life, America would have a far lower murder rate than any European country)?
My text is in bold.
Oh, it should also be added that the article states that gun holders aren't allowed to be drunk while armed and if you say "Well, how many of them will follow that law?", I can respond with a similar rhetorical question of how many people who are carrying guns illegally will not bring their guns into a bar.
As much as I approve of concealed carry, alcohol and firearms is never a good mix. I think they should reconsider.
Ahemm...
Quote:
The measure would ban drinking while packing and allow restaurants to deny entry to gun-toting citizens by posting a sign next to their liquor license.
*chuckle* This article is a perfect example of how to stir up people who do not read and simply assume what the issue is. I read the article and I saw the same provision you quoted as well as the initial restriction being removed that required food to be served (requiring a kitchen present which some bar owners objected to based on definition).
Basically, the sum of it is that you can carry a gun into an establishment that serves alcohol, but you can not be holding if you are drinking and the business (rightly so) still retains the right to deny it fully anyway.
My assumption concerning the serving food dispute and removal is that it was likely a argument of legislative stipulation on what defines a restaurant which would technically disqualify some businesses who honestly do serve food, yet not in the manner to which would have been defined.
In the end, only lawful people will be carrying in these establishments and will be as responsible as they would be in any other establishment that currently permits such. Those who drink and carry in these establishments will be breaking the law and lets be honest here, those who will break this law (carrying and drinking) are very likely to already be breaking the current law which bans it entirely anyway. So... this merely allows law abiding citizens to function within the bounds of their responsibility without having proactive laws enforcing restrictions based on how a law abiding person is a "criminal waiting to happen". I like the law.
Oh, it should also be added that the article states that gun holders aren't allowed to be drunk while armed and if you say "Well, how many of them will follow that law?", I can respond with a similar rhetorical question of how many people who are carrying guns illegally will not bring their guns into a bar.
Start enforcing a policy and it will take effect. Cops start going into bars with breathalizers and anyone with a firearm gets a test. If you are drunk (above the legal limit) and have a gun on you, 90 days in jail and a large fine. People will get the hint pretty quick. If drunk driving can get reduced through enfrocement, then so can drinking and firearms.
People can be trained to shoot to maim. Change the policy if you think prosecutors are going to go nuts on this. If someone is paranoid, and is ready to draw a gun and fire to protect themselves, the threat is probably at close range and its entirely possible.
If a person is known to leave a gun out in the open wherever some kid can get it and then shoot another kid or commit a crime, it is negligence, they're a source for firearms just like those who sell them by illegal means, only while those that sell them are greedy and unscrupulous, those that get them stolen are stupid and irresponsible. Put an alarm on the case, photo cameras around them if you want to show you did everything in your power to keep them from getting stolen, whatever, but if you want the right, you need to take responsibility.
I'll tell you a story, a guy in Flint left his gun where his 6 year old nephew could get it. The six year old took the gun to school and shot his classmate. The name was Kayla Rowling I believe and it happened in spring of 2000. Who should get penalized in that?
If you want a gun, keep it under control, if you can't for any reason, you are a threat to others and you don't deserve that right.
Odinloki1 - I presume Loki wrote your post. Have you ever been in a gunfight? Do you know how quickly things happen? Real fights do not take nearly as long as TV directors make it seem.
Alcohol is not your friend in a gunfight. Just the act of being armed tends to make most folks behave more responsibly.
Start enforcing a policy and it will take effect. Cops start going into bars with breathalizers and anyone with a firearm gets a test. If you are drunk (above the legal limit) and have a gun on you, 90 days in jail and a large fine. People will get the hint pretty quick.
People can be trained to shoot to maim. Change the policy if you think prosecutors are going to go nuts on this. If someone is paranoid, and is ready to draw a gun and fire to protect themselves, the threat is probably at close range and its entirely possible.
If a person is known to leave a gun out in the open wherever some kid can get it and then shoot another kid or commit a crime, it is negligence, they're a source for firearms just like those who sell them by illegal means, only while those that sell them are greedy and unscrupulous, those that get them stolen are stupid and irresponsible. Put an alarm on the case, photo cameras around them, whatever, but if you want the right, you need to take responsibility.
If you want a gun, keep it under control, if you can't for any reason, you are a threat to others and you don't deserve that right.
Police officers are NEVER taught to "shoot to maim", they are taught to "shoot to stop the action" and this usually results in the death of the person committing such an action that shooting warrants (immediacy of life threatening action by the suspect of ones self or another).
Also, shooting to maim or disable is not an exact science. While some may take a bullet and be incapacitated in a manner that stops their actions and removes the threat, others may not. Shooting to disable or maim is gambling with ones own life or that of another it is trying to protect as well as increasing the danger of unintended victims due to miss or pass through.
California is very restrictive in their policies concerning lethal force and even its P.O.S.T (Police Officers Standards of Training) teaches shooting to "stop the action" to which the most effective target area and action recommended is a one to two shots center mass as it is the largest target area (lessening misses) and thickest body area (reducing pass through) and the most effective area for stopping an action. It is also an area that has a high probability of death to the suspect.
If a police officer states or a citizen states that they shot someone to wound or maim, they place themselves in extreme liability which often results in actions taken against them for endangering the public. You shoot to stop the action according to policy, this is the first and foremost rule of use of force.
You can always spot the phony conservatives when they stop short of agreeing to the right to carry in a bar. "Yeah, the Constitution guarantees your right, but...."
Odinloki1 - I presume Loki wrote your post. Have you ever been in a gunfight? Do you know how quickly things happen? Real fights do not take nearly as long as TV directors make it seem.
Alcohol is not your friend in a gunfight. Just the act of being armed tends to make most folks behave more responsibly.
Odinloki1 , you seen reasonable . I am thinking that thieves would target cars after they see someone putting a gun in the trunk .
Do you think I'm thinking correctly ?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
