Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cj2112
So are we to believe that the punk who shot your buddy was a fine upstanding citizen who had not only jumped through the hoops to legally buy the gun, but also the hoops to legally carry it, then because he was such a fine upstanding citizen he figured murdering someone with his legally obtained and legally carried firearm was a good idea?
|
I have the unique perspective of knowing both victim and murderer in that case, actually. The man who did the shooting went to a local high school around the same time as me. I actually lost a few games of football to him and his team. After asking around (and informing the police, of course), I found out that the gun belonged to his father. Legally. The upstanding citizen, the murderer's father, was lax in his hiding of the gun from someone who was clearly not responsible with it. Therefore, the father was not a responsible gun owner. The father was an accomplace to murder because he was no careful enough to hide his gun from people who would misuse it. The bullet was traced back, the son charged, the father was stripped of his gun license. Now, if guns had been banned, the father wouldn't have had the gun, the son couldn't have taken the gun, and my friend would still be alive and his family would be well taken care of.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by im2smrt4u
Right on the money. It is unfortunate that anyone gets hurt with guns, but preventing law abiding citizens from owning handguns only puts people more at risk.
If a lowlife knows that average joe isn't allowed to have a gun, he's not going to be afraid of being shot. Stun-guns are worthlessly underpowered in CA, pepper spray can be blown away in the wind, and Tasers cost too much. What does a criminal have left to fear?
|
Gangs regularly fire on members of other gangs, while knowing full well the other gang member might have a gun. If someone wants to shoot you, there is no sure way to know whether they know you have a gun or not will even cause them to hesetate (if that makes sense). It is harder for a criminal to be armed in a place that has banned guns. If that criminal does happen to arm his or herself, he or she will become more obvious to others. If 12 people in a gun-free city of 5000 have illegal guns, word wil spread fast if they choose to use it. If 120 in a city of 50,000 have guns, word will sporead quickly when and if they use it. Am I making sense?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dragonknight
Also Willravel I'm very sorry to hear about your losses, I truly am. Like Cj2112 said it most likely wasn't a legally acquired weapon, nor was it a legally carried one. Another thought, I've been to Iraq twice and shot at more then a couple of times. Now I went with the military knowing FULL well that there was a damn good chance of me getting shot at or shot. Now if your friend was in the military when he was in Iraq, he knew that getting shot was a hazard of the job, bottom line. Even if he wasn't in the military or working with them he was in Iraq, not one of the safest places in the world right now. He's very lucky he only lost a leg. I've see the coffins of a few friends who never left alive and guns didn't kill them IED's (improvised explosives device) did. On top of all that, the explosives didn't kill them, people did with what ever that had at there disposal. I'm quite sure if the people that were trying to kill us could do it with just a knife, they'd be just as happy to use that.
|
I thank you for your symapthies, very much. Yes, I'm sure my friend knew full well what he was getting in to. He has no illusions about war. My friend that was shot in the face was not at war. He was racing his cheap little rice rocket and happened to beat the wrong person.