Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pan6467
True, but the argument could be made that they go to courthouses, schools and so on because the statement they wish to make is there.
Just as people who go into McDonald's, or Wal*Marts or wherever. To say shootings will only occur where people are not allowed to have guns.... or that the psychos choose places because they know there are no guns there, is ludicrous.
What of armed guards in the courthouses?
|
Again, I talk about MASS shootings. Specific targets are another matter entirely.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pan6467
Where do I show "low regard for the capabilities of people"? And yes, that is very offensive to me. You're response here and the attack on me, shows me that you cannot come up with a true rebuttal, without attacking me.
|
First off, although our opinions differ in some things, i've always held them in respect. I'm sorry if you are offended at my remarks about 'low regard for the capabilities of people', but you clearly state that that is your opinion with the following -
Quote:
Most people, even if they do have guns when surprised, shocked and scared do not know how to react.
If you have people carrying guns in courthouses for fear of some psycho coming in, you have a lot of people with itchy trigger fingers and the second something happens that they aren't ready for, you may get innocent people getting shot because people over-reacted. Or, if it is an attack you may get more people killed because of crossfire.
There's a reason most major cities have SWAT teams and people who specialize in these areas. It is no, not, never a good place for the average Joe to take out his Glock and play Rambo. You're asking for more trouble than it is worth. Do you honestly believe the average Joe (trained in a classroom setting, who basically shot at a paper and took some written exam) and his Glock 9, are going to take down some nut case, who probably doesn't feel pain at the moment, who has more fire power than a Marine, and is ready for anything?
My feeling is the average Joe is shitting himself, IF he is brave enough to pull out his gun his hand is shaking so bad he can't get good aim and misses, perhaps maiming or killing innocents. Meanwhile, the Psycho hears the guns and really lets loose.
So you tell me, is it worth it? I don't think so, and I think the argument that people who carry guns are trained at handling this and the above scenario would never happen is a pipe dream and not based on anything.
|
How am I to believe that you do not feel that way?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pan6467
If I truly had "low regard for the capabilities of people", I would be wanting guns banned period. I just believe the vast majority of people whether they carry guns or not, can talk a great game but when in the real situation and the pressure is on, will tend to react very differently then they talk.
Or are you trying to state that every single person carrying a gun will respond the exact same way, and will be perfect shooters and there would be no crossfire or innocents hurt? Which if that's the case, I find as misguided and sad as you obviously found my comments.
|
I do not believe that everyone that is licensed is going to be prepared to deal with most situations. I believe that maybe 25% of the people that are licensed and have trained still shouldn't be carrying a gun, but of those 25%, most of them will never find the strength to pull it any way if needed. But I do believe that more than half of those who go through the process of getting the training and the license are ready. Of all the people that I deal with on a 'friendship' basis, who are licensed, are MORE than ready. I shoot great, but these guys beat me hands down AND they have taken the extra steps in taking the tactical training that even most cops don't do. They are capable and ready.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pan6467
That's the point of voting, majority rules. The 42% had their chance to show their case to the people and lost. And I don't know about where you live but a 16% difference in votes, is a landslide where I come from.
|
When people are voting on whether to sell acohol in their county, fine, majority rules but we do NOT live in a democracy where mob rule can trample individual rights. As I once read, Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. We live in a representative republic where a majority does not get to override the rights of the minority.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pan6467
But I still don't see how that gives people who live outside that community the right to try to dictate policy and overturn the voice of the people.
|
Are any of the minority S.F.ers NRA members? If they are, then I'd say they got the best representation possible to keep mob rule from violating their rights.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pan6467
Again, that's why the Federal government is so strong. They capitalize on the fighting and have to make laws. And when that is the case we all lose.
But, keep fighting the voice of the people in places you don't live and may never visit. Keep believing that you know what's best for a community you don't even live near. You tell me I have "low regard for the capabilities of people"? Yet you support going into a community where the voters have spoken and want to tell the vast majority there that they are wrong..... and use the courts to do so? Who wants to dictate policy now?
|
I hardly think that by standing up for individual rights is 'dictating policy'. The majority does NOT get to remove the rights of a minority, or have you forgotten about the 9th, 10th, 13th, and 14th amendments of the constitution?
Quote:
|
Now if San Francisco says, "People are not allowed to have guns within the city limits, except in their own homes." and you get arrested for carrying a gun, then you should suffer the consequences. Because there is no singling out of anybody, and because you knew the law chose to carry there.
|
The problem is that S.F.ers, if this ban goes through, does not allow ownership PERIOD. Not even in their own homes. If all san fran wanted to do was outlaw handgun carrying in city limits, what do I care. People would still be allowed to use them for defense in their homes, but an outright ban on ownership violates the constitution.
edit - I did want to acknowledge this statement by you
Quote:
|
If I am to be taken out by a shooter, I'd rather it be the psycho, than an innocent man playing Rambo. The psycho will get his, the innocent man who made a mistake will live with that guilt for the rest of his life.
|
I can completely understand that. I wouldn't want anyone to feel guilty for shooting anyone instead of the bad guy because of a missed shot, but we'll have to disagree on the part about letting the psycho keep shooting instead of someone playing 'rambo'. without someone shooting back at him, the psycho just gets to keep on killing innocent people and I couldn't live with that.