dksuddeth

that prompted texas to pass concealed handgun license laws. This should be make it clear that anyone who really wants to kill someone will not be stopped by gun control laws. The BEST AND ONLY defense in this situation is to be armed yourself. If it was easier for law abiding citizens to carry for their defense, there might be only one person dead........the original criminal.

Three Dead, Two Injured in Shooting at Denny's in California

A gunman opened fire inside a crowded Denny's restaurant during lunch hour Wednesday, killing two people and wounding two before taking his own life, police said.

"There could have been 30 or 40 people inside. As the shootings occurred, people were fleeing the restaurant, hiding in bathrooms," Cmdr. Jeff Norton said.

Police Chief Joe Cortez said authorities have not found any connection between the gunman and the victims, and it does not appear he had a grudge against Denny's or its employees.

He said the man, armed with a semiautomatic handgun and a revolver, began shooting within a few steps of the restaurant's front door.

"The witnesses described him as coming in with a dazed look on his face, then they said he started shooting," Cortez said.

Authorities were trying determine whether the gunman had a history of mental illness or whether there were drugs or alcohol in his system, Cortez said.

"We are shocked and saddened by this tragic accident," the restaurant chain said in a statement. "This appears to be a random act of violence."

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

shakran

Or we could have had more die in the crossfire.

Maybe we can prevent school shootings by arming all the kids too?

Maybe if it were harder to get guns, stories like these wouldn't happen. . .

cj2112

did we really need ANOTHER thread in which to debate gun control?

ratbastid

And did it really need to be in General? Why isn't it in Politics where it belongs?

cj2112

both of these "accidental" shootings were caused by irresponsible people and should be prosecuted as crimes.

shakran

Yeah, obviously. My point is that if irresponsible people didn't have guns they wouldn't have the chance to be irresponsible with them.

I'm not out to ban guns, but I'm tired of the old "beat the government" or "be the frikkin' Rambo hero and save the day by plugging the bad guy" arguments. The former is impossible and the latter almost never happens.

djtestudo

The problem is, how do you keep them from the irresponsible people without keeping them from the responsible people?

__________________
"Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen."
--Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

Willravel

Gun ban.

Gun control is set up to prevent irresponsibble peope from having guns. Proper gunc ontrol should be able to screen for history of mental illness, arrest record, if they watch "Die Hard" every Christmas, and one should be monitored indifinately.

You should have to pass a psych evaluation before getting a gun.

Carno

I say we just KILL all the irresponsible people.

But then again I have been known to have a bad idea or two.

__________________
http://how-to-spell-ridiculous.com/

Marvelous Marv

Good idea. Look how well it worked here:

Link

__________________
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."
Margaret Thatcher

dksuddeth

yeah, gun bans have really kept guns out of DC and chicago, havent they?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

dksuddeth

because I didn't necessarily aim at politics and politicians?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Willravel

You did a really great job of reading my post.

dksuddeth

It's already hard for those that want to obey the law to get a gun. What would help keep stories like this from happening is for people to stop pointing at guns and yelling EVIL and start taking a healthy interest in their own self defense.

When is the last time you heard of someone going in to a gun show to start a massacre?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

dksuddeth

Will, most states that require a license already have these requirements, except for a full blown psych eval, but then if you did that then half the cops would fail.
Federal law mandates that NO FELONS can carry a gun in public. All the states that I'm aware of prevent people who have had ANY sort of psych issue in the last 5 years from carrying. Do you think we should ask people if they watch die hard every xmas on their registration? As far as monitored indefinitely, all licenses require a renewal, except for Indiana which is very close to passing a life time license, however, any of the aforementioned issues happening causes a revocation of the license.

gun bans and gun control only keeps guns out of the hands of those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

shakran

It is? Oh. Silly me. I didn't think getting off the couch and driving to a gun show was particularly hard.

And how exactly would that prevent accidental shootings? Would the kid that was accidentally shot be able to dive out of the way and shoot back?


I've never heard of anyone starting a massacre in a milk factory either. That doesn't mean milk prevents crime. Correlation does not equal causation. Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it won't happen.

Willravel

Then don't give them guns. It's unstable cops that make the bigest mistakes.
You're saying that felons are less inclined or determined than others to commit crimes? Are you aware of the statistics on felons committing crimes? Yes, the Die Hard thing was an obvious joke, but the psych eval is absolutely serious. Do you want the bipolar guy fighting depression and having suicidal thoughts next door to your family with a Desert Eagle? How about the cop with serious anger issues and alcoholism protecting your family?

dksuddeth

Unless its a private owner doing the sale, ALL commercial sales still require a background check.

How do we stop accidental pool drownings? or not looking both ways when crossing the street? Take some fricking personal responsibility!!!!! what do accidental shootings have to do with an idiot shooting up a dennys anyway?

but you hear of post office shootings, school shootings, church shootings, and restaraunt shootings....why? because idiots think that if you put up a 'no guns' sign, people will think 'damn, I better not go in there or i'll be breaking the law!!!'

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

dksuddeth

In all the states that i'm aware of the laws there, if you are on psychotic related meds, you can't be licensed. so how well did that law work?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Willravel

Less than 1% of people in the US with a professionally diagnosed mental illness are on any kind of medication. That leaves over 99% of people with a professionally diagnosed mental illness free to go grab their favorite gun at the local, 100% legal gun shop. The law doesn't work because it was written by people who have no idea what they're doing.

dksuddeth

That there is about the most correct thing you've stated when it comes to our conversations. ok, maybe not, but that struck me as profoundly accurate.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

shakran

OK. So 1) you proved my point. I can buy it from a private owner. and 2) you proved my point again. We're talking about law abiding people here. It's rather unlikely that they're not going to pass a background check. So it's STILL easy.



Nothing, but then this shooting doesn't have much with CCW laws either. He came in. He'd have gotten the first guy for sure because I don't know of a whole lot of gun owners who are psychics and could have sensed that he would shoot. He'd probably get the second guy too since his gun's already out and targeting while the citizen Rambos are busy pulling their guns. The fact that he's shooting two guns at once means while he's killing the first two, he's also wounding the other two. The third guy that died was the gunman because he shot himself. So, the citizen Rambos would have accomplished precisely dick. And in fact they might have killed or wounded a few more people in the confusion.



Well great. Like I said, let's arm EVERYone! Let's give the kids guns too! We could even give girls pink guns with glitter on 'em so they'd be more likely to carry 'em. We can't have defenseless kids can we?

DJ Happy

I think preventing gun related deaths by giving more people guns is the best idea I've ever heard. Where do I sign up?

jwoody

I think it's about time somebody invented pistols with knife and fork adaptations on the end.

You just can't relax for a second in the modern world.

__________________
.

dksuddeth

If they PASS a background check, why is there an issue?

So instead of allowing people the ability to defend themselves, or others, we'll just put up with the many deaths that a criminal will cause until our neighborhood police get done with their coffee and donuts and decide to come and arrest him? Do me a favor, stay out of my neighborhood.


I love the last ditch 'lets protect the kids' attempt. Nobody is talking about letting juveniles arm themselves, however, if people took some responsibility and actually TAUGHT their kids how to respect the use of a gun and be responsible about it instead of the 'guns are evil' crap, we might have less violence out there.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

dksuddeth

milk factory=workplace=workplace shooting. maybe you've heard of them.
they happen because lawyers advise employers that their liability costs go down by banning guns from the workplace....until the disgruntled employee comes in to blast the place KNOWING that nobody in there will be armed and he can kill with relative immunity until the cops show up.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

dksuddeth

Here's another question,

If a handgun is appropriate for police to use as a self defense tool, why is it not appropriate for the average citizen? I don't see any dead cops in this dennys, looks like the cops weren't the target.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

filtherton

If running red lights is appropriate for police to do as a way to get somewhere fast, why is it not appropriate for the average citizen?

dksuddeth

Not to be too insulting to your 'comparison', but thats just plain stupid. It should be OBVIOUS, why they run redlights, and heres the important part, WHEN RESPONDING TO A DISTRESS CALL!!!!

thats probably the best case of apples and oranges that i've heard yet though. good one.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Willravel

Filtherton's point is that it is the responsibility of police officers to protect and serve, and it is in that responsibility that they are given the legal authority to run lights AND wear a gun as a self defence 'tool'. Let me put it to you this way...how often would a police officer need a gun for self defence versus you or me? I've not once in my life required a gun for self defence, have you ever needed it? Now compare that figure to how often a police officer is in danger. You decide.

And please, if you want to show the fault in someones argument, do so. Don't call them or what they've written 'stupid'.

shakran

First off, how about "one response, one post?" It's kinda dumb to have to go through 3 replies to quote out what we need.

YOU are the one who said it's HARD for law abiding citizens to get a gun. I called bullshit on that. It is NOT hard. If I want a gun, I can have one 7 days from now, totally legally. The hardest part would be earning the money for it. Don't try to turn it around into something that it never was.



so 1) you think the cops are going to linger over donuts before they respond to a crime. I deal with cops almost every day. I've met good cops, and I've met total asshole cops. Not ONE of them would delay an emergency call to finish their meal. Let's not be needlessly insulting to the cops shall we?

2) You have never bothered to respond to the crossfire issue. If a bunch of "defenders" pull their guns and start shooting, someone's likely to get shot that doesn't need to be shot.

3) Where the hell do you live? I dunno about you but murder per capita where I've lived isn't nearly what you're implying. You're acting like we live in a warzone. I routinely go into some of the worst neighborhoods, and I've NEVER been in a situation where a gun would be helpful. It's disingenuous to artificially inflate the crime problem in order to justify your desire to have a gun.

My whole point in all these arguments is not to ban guns. It's to get you gun enthusiasts to stop using bullshit arguments to support your side.

You're the one who keeps saying "gee, look at this shooting. If ONLY the crowd had all been armed to the teeth! None of this would've happened!"

The logical conclusion to that is that in all the school shootings, if ONLY the kids had guns, there wouldn't have been a slaughter. Ergo, let's arm kids.

None of us are saying guns are evil. You're the one putting that crap in our mouths. We're saying your arguments in support of your desire to have guns are bullshit. And that's exactly what they are. Boil it all down, and you just WANT a gun. Nothing wrong with that, but be honest about it instead of inventing all these reasons that don't even make sense.

school also=workplace=workplace shooting. Arm the children.

Marvelous Marv

I have drawn a gun in self defense, but I will refrain from calling your argument stupid; instead, I will call it what it is: Dangerously naive.

__________________
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."
Margaret Thatcher

Marvelous Marv

In a legitimate health emergency, it is. I didn't say it was LEGAL, but if a family member of mine were bleeding profusely, and I were driving them to a hospital at two in the morning on a deserted road, it would be appropriate not to sit for two minutes at a red light. In fact, it would be "cerebrally impaired" to do so.

And please don't resort to the "Why didn't you call an ambulance" fallacy. (For the same reason the Denny's shooter wasn't in a mental facility.)

__________________
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."
Margaret Thatcher

cj2112

The courts have struck down the argument that it is the polices responsibility to protect the individual citizen, therefore the responsibility falls to me to protect myself and my family. I also have used a firearm in self defense.

Willravel

In what way?
I never said "protect the individual citizen", I said protect and serve, as in to protect and serve society. The responsibility to protect the 'individual citizen' is irrelevent, to responsilibity to protect the whole populace of the US falls to the whole executive branch when it enforces laws that the judicial branch interprets and the legislative branch creates.

The bottom line is that a police officer walking the beat is put into dangerous situations more often than the average citizen, AND, by vocation, seeks to aprehend criminals. The police officer seeks out criminals, so he is around danger more. Unless a citizen seek out criminals (vigilantism is illegal, btw), he or she is not in as much danger as a police officer.

filtherton

Wait wait wait, so you're saying that pointing out that the police get special priviliges is stupid? Well, i don't know, i think perhaps that you should be apologizing to all of us for even bringing it up in the first place.

Nope, in practice the police can actually run nearly any red light that they want. In any case, if you're trying to imply that when it comes to gun ownership if a family member of yours was bleeding profusely you'd be willing to break the law with your gun(this is all about gun ownership after all) than you don't really sound like a lawful, repsonsible gun owner to me.

Marvelous Marv

I will respectfully decline to answer that question in all but the vaguest of terms.

I was able to convince a person attempting to commit a felony on me that it would be a bad idea. Without firing the weapon.

That essentially describes the circumstances both times.

If I interpret the above correctly, if my life is only endangered once a year, my safety is irrelevant, compared to the risks encountered much more frequently by police.

Does that sum up your point?

__________________
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."
Margaret Thatcher

Marvelous Marv

(Must ... keep ... sarcasm... under ...wraps...) Uhhh, I think the fact that police and other emergency personnel are allowed to run red lights is known by everyone, and was actually the basis for this part of the discussion.

No, your argument is silly, or if I'm being charitable, a straw man. The comparison was made to running red lights, and that is the subject to which I was referring.

__________________
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."
Margaret Thatcher

Willravel

Yeesh. You said "I will refrain from calling your argument stupid; instead, I will call it what it is: Dangerously naive." How is my argument niave? I don't care to know the circumstances of your nonviolent gun battle.
Your safety isn't the issue. Aparently, everyone getting a gun and defending their right to own a gun is. I don't particularly care if you have a gun or not, so long as you don't shoot at me, but if you're going to make the argument I'm going to argue back.

If you're life is in danger, do what you can with the means you have to get yourslef out of danger. Does that mean you have the right to have a gun? Pfft, who cares? Does that mean you need a gun? Not really.

I was in danger today. I got cut off on the highway by a guy who would have oblitterated my Audi had I not done some serious breaking. Would a gun have saved me? Probably not. A few years back, a guy tried to mug me. He pulled a knife and I simply handed him the cash from my wallet. Could I have shot him? I suppose, but all that would have proven is that $50 is worth a man's life. I could have beaten him toi a pulp, too, but I didn't. I can't think of any realistic situations off the top of my head that absolutely require a firearm.

Do you think that it's within the realm of reality that the situation you described earlier could have been defused without a gun?

To address the police vs. you thing:

A police officer is trained, given a gun, and told uphold the law.
You go out and buy a gun because you think you or your family is in danger from something or someone.

There is a noticable difference between these two situations, and I'm going to explain it.

There are dangerous people in our society. Sometimes these dangerous people break the law. In breaking the law, these people are now criminals. Police men and women are trained and given a legal right to persue, investigate, arrest, and process criminals. In their job, they encounter dangerous people SO often that it makes sense for them to need to defend themselves from criminals with a gun. They put themselves into danger in order to safeguard our society.

You are a citizen. You are not responsible for the well being of anyone but yourself. You are not a police man or woman. If you were to buy a gun and try to go out and stop criminals, you would be a vigilante. Let's face it, you're not Batman, and you would really piss off the police. You are not in dangerous situations every day. You COULD run into one of the dangerous members of society, but the odds of that are slim (like the slim odds of winning a lottery). "But Will, do you really want me to play the odds with my family's safety?!" You already are. Odds play a role in how you defend your family. You are not taking steps to defend yourself from a monkey attack, because it is not likely to happen. You don't take steps to protect your family from flesh eating bacteria because you're not likely to get it. You don't take steps to protect yourself from cell phone radiation because the information about how dangerous it is isn't proven. You don't buy a gun to defend your family or yourself from an attack that's not likely to happen.

dksuddeth

You've read through the various posts I've put on here where a handgun was used for self defense by non-police. I have luckily never been in a dire enough situation where a handgun would have made the difference between my life and my death, but there have been a few instances where I would have been more relieved to have had one with me, just in case.

The police have NO RESPONSIBILITY to protect you. NONE. They are law enforcement, not crime prevention.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."