The Second Amendment

[98cwitr]

Why does anyone choose a particular weapon if it is irrelevant?

I'd like to know if she didn't have that gun available to her if she would have chosen a knife instead.

It seems people care about the weapon they use for hunting and sports, why should it be different for mass killings?

2nd amendment has zero to do with hunting or sport.

When did someone last use a bow and arrow for mass killings? If weapon is irrelevant, then we should see more bow and arrow attacks

Since you asked: Killer used bow and arrow in attack at Casper College; one victim was his father

I wonder why we don't see this.

A combination of not looking for it coupled with not fitting the media's anti-gun agenda. If CNN was pro-gun, a lot more liberals I suspect would be pro-gun.

 

[SummerMadness]

I'd like to know if she didn't have that gun available to her if she would have chosen a knife instead.

And the number of deaths from these mass killings would be far lower. I'll save you the time on the stabbing case in Japan, 19 mentally disabled people killed; their mental disability played a major role in the body count.

2nd amendment has zero to do with hunting or sport.

You've argued that the weapon of choice is irrelevant, but it is very relevant to gun owners. They spend a lot of time and energy picking a gun to suit their needs and personality.

Since you asked: Killer used bow and arrow in attack at Casper College; one victim was his father

I don't think this would fall under the category of mass killing, this is clearly a murder-suicide; the suspect killed his father on-campus (bow and arrow) and his girlfriend off-campus (stabbed) before taking his own life. This not a student shooting multiple students, which in any case, the point is the choice of a gun does have an impact on the outcome of these mass killings.

A combination of not looking for it coupled with not fitting the media's anti-gun agenda. If CNN was pro-gun, a lot more liberals I suspect would be pro-gun.

Please show us all the attacks similar to a mass killing where the weapon of choice was not a gun and resulted in a lot of carnage. How are those mass killings similar to those carried out with guns?

If weapons were irrelevant, then we should still be fighting with plate armor, swords and shields. We don't for a reason: weaponry matters.

And what does CNN have to do with anything? No one mentioned them, only you. Do you believe I watch CNN or something? I don't, but even if I did, it has nothing to do with the argument made here.

 

[Oneiric1975]

Tell that to the victims of violence (including with guns, because after all, criminals don't obey laws) and bombings in places where guns are outright banned. They're all just sitting ducks with no way to defend themselves.

Is that why "good guy with a gun" scenarios almost never happen here in the US?

I believe the 2nd amendment is for more than just those who can afford your suggested fees.

So there's yet ANOTHER proposal you turn down.

Seems in your world guns win and nothing can be done to solve any problem that guns help make worse.

 

[Oneiric1975]

2nd amendment has zero to do with hunting or sport.

That's not how the NRA sells it.

 

[Fantine]

Sounds like stop and frisk!

Which laws, specifically? I don't think 90% of Americans support gun control, especially with the progun state legislation (ie: constitutional carry laws) getting passed

I support keeping violent felons from buying guns and ammo (and voting), but I also support repealing the NFA and GCA entirely.

State legislatures have been so corrupted by gerrymandering that they don't represent the people. People call my legislature the clown college, and it does seem like it's filled with Pennywises at times.

There needs to be a law requiring districts to be drawn using a standardized fair software package. Every state. Don't take our rights away.

 

[DaisyDay]

I think you are misunderstanding the reason that officers shoot someone, simply having a gun is not justification but having a gun and using it in a way that causes the officer to fear for his life does justify use of deadly force.

Amadou Diallo didn't even have a gun, but his having a phone in his hand, in his own doorway was enough that the cops who shot him got off scot free.

 

[morningstar2651]

I didn't justify either of these killings.

You literally justified shooting a child in your previous post.

That had been altered to look like the real thing.

 

[disciple Clint]

Amadou Diallo didn't even have a gun, but his having a phone in his hand, in his own doorway was enough that the cops who shot him got off scot free.

Thank you for pointing out the fact that Cops are human and like all humans regardless of how hard the try to make the right decision every time, they do sometimes do something such as mistaking a cell phone for a gun and shooting someone who fails to follow the repeated orders to put it down, which by the way tends to confirm the officers belief that it is a gun.

 

[Pommer]

Thank you for pointing out the fact that Cops are human and like all humans regardless of how hard the try to make the right decision every time, they do sometimes do something such as mistaking a cell phone for a gun and shooting someone who fails to follow the repeated orders to put it down, which by the way tends to confirm the officers belief that it is a gun.

Yeah, it’d’ve been nice if Mr Diallo got the same “benefit of the doubt” that these gentlemen would like, but he’s dead.

 

[disciple Clint]

Yeah, it’d’ve been nice if Mr Diallo got the same “benefit of the doubt” that these gentlemen would like, but he’s dead.

He had the benefit of the doubt all he had to do was put down the phone, it was obvious that the officer thought it was a gun because he was repeatedly saying put down the gun. How simple is it to follow directions?

 

[Pommer]

Amadou Diallo didn't even have a gun, but his having a phone in his hand, in his own doorway was enough that the cops who shot him got off scot free.

Thank you for pointing out the fact that Cops are human and like all humans regardless of how hard the try to make the right decision every time, they do sometimes do something such as mistaking a cell phone for a gun and shooting someone who fails to follow the repeated orders to put it down, which by the way tends to confirm the officers belief that it is a gun.

Yeah, it’d’ve been nice if Mr Diallo got the same “benefit of the doubt” that these gentlemen would like, but he’s dead.

He had the benefit of the doubt all he had to do was put down the phone, it was obvious that the officer thought it was a gun because he was repeatedly saying put down the gun. How simple is it to follow directions?

From Wikipedia:
“In the early morning of February 4, 1999, Diallo was standing near his building after returning from a meal. At about 12:40 a.m., officers Edward McMellon, Sean Carroll, Kenneth Boss and Richard Murphy were looking for an alleged serial rapist in the Soundview section of the Bronx. While driving down Wheeler Avenue, the police officer stopped his unidentified car and interrogated Diallo, who was in front of his apartment. When they ordered Diallo to show his hands, he supposedly ran into the apartment and reached into his pocket to show his wallet. Soon afterwards the four officers fired 41 shots with semi-automatic pistols, fatally hitting Diallo 19 times. Eyewitness Sherrie Elliott stated that the police continued to shoot even though Diallo was already down, that McMellon kept shooting even though Diallo was lying on the ground.”
[wikilinks axed]

Maybe we might want to agree on which questionable shooting that we’re talking about?

 

[Albion]

You literally justified shooting a child in your previous post.

It's amazing how people can read a piece and think they've read something completely opposite to or unrelated to what was on the page. It probably shows how what we anticipate finding can sometimes overpower what is actually there in front of our eyes.

 

[Brihaha]

I think the Second Amendment needs to be altered to say that Americans have the right to carry toy guns until we learn how to behave around real guns.

I grew up in a hunting household. My dad had a number of guns and I don't recall anything like the kind of "gun worshipping" I see from modern day 2nd Amendment Fetishists. My dad would no more take a gun into a Starbucks (even if open carry were a thing then) than he'd dress up in a clown outfit and urinate in public!

America has a pathological relationship with guns at this point in time. And it's tearing us apart. We THINK we are so safe and free, but we are about the only developed nation on earth where it is not just possible but LIKELY that any one of us will die for the bad decision of going to the grocery store on the wrong day.

We, as a nation, watched a psychopath gun down LITTLE KIDS and we didn't do a damn thing afterwards.

What is wrong with us?

I think many politicians work for the gun lobby and not OUR needs. And for some unfathomable reason, Americans seem to vote these incumbents back into office.

 

[Brihaha]

He had the benefit of the doubt all he had to do was put down the phone, it was obvious that the officer thought it was a gun because he was repeatedly saying put down the gun. How simple is it to follow directions?

Sounds like the feller was told to put down a gun. Since he had no gun, what direction should he have followed? I had a white friend playing paintball with an automatic paintball rifle. The cops rolled up and drew their weapons and hollered "Drop the rifle". He hollered back "It's a plastic paintball gun, I'm not dropping it". They didn’t shoot him. Just an interesting fact. Peace

 

[Albion]

I think many politicians work for the gun lobby and not OUR needs. And for some unfathomable reason, Americans seem to vote these incumbents back into office.

Those voters probably think that these politicians are doing the job they were elected to when they're defending the Constitution, whether it's the right to own guns or to freely assemble or the right to free speech. IOW, the answer doesn't appear to be "unfathomable" at all.

On the other hand, if you choose to use the terminology ("gun lobby") of those who oppose the Second Amendment, you can make responsible politicians seem to be disreputable.

 

[Belk]

That had been altered to look like the real thing.

If it was a real gun would that of been justification for his death?

 

[Brihaha]

Those voters probably think that these politicians are doing the job they were elected to when they're defending the Constitution, whether it's the right to own guns or to freely assemble or the right to free speech. IOW, the answer doesn't appear to be "unfathomable" at all.

On the other hand, if you choose to use the terminology ("gun lobby") of those who oppose the Second Amendment, you can make responsible politicians seem to be disreputable.

Nobody makes politicians seem disreputable. Their actions or inaction prove they do not work for constituents' needs. I am all for the right to bear arms. Common sense gun laws and the right to have a gun are not mutually exclusive. We can do both. We simply choose not to. This is what seems unfathomable to me. I appreciate your reply. Have a nice day.

 

[Albion]

If it was a real gun would that of been justification for his death?

I was responding to a post that said this of Rice--

Tamir Rice was a 12 year old CHILD. Playing with a toy gun.

Because that is a sanitized description of the event, it seemed appropriate to add facts that the poster's statement had omitted. That's for the benefit of all readers who are being asked if what took place was justified or not. I hope you agree.

 

[Belk]

I was responding to a post that said this of Rice--



Because that is a sanitized description of the event, it seemed appropriate to add facts that the poster's statement had omitted. That's for the benefit of all readers who are being asked if what took place was justified or not. I hope you agree.

Yes, you added the fact that it was altered to look like a real gun. So my question is, if it was a real gun would that of been justification for his death? If not the fact that it it was altered is not relevant.

 

[Albion]

Nobody makes politicians seem disreputable. Their actions or inaction prove they do not work for constituents' needs.

Well, all right. While most of would agree that honest and responsible legislators do exist, many of us are also horrified at those who are indeed dishonest, biased, or unreliable, etc.

Still in all, the way any observer describes an action has the effect of coloring the event and the person doing it. We can make the action seem repulsive or foolish...or, on the other hand we can, by choosing other jargon, make it and the person appear to be high minded and fair.

We see this all the time during political campaigns and on the websites that either favor or oppose some elected official.