A gun in the right hands?

[Sandtrap328]

In yesterday's Daily Sun was an article about a shooting near St Pete, FL.

A 64 year old man and his 26 year old daughter walked up to a house and knocked on the door. They were looking for their lost dog. The 83 year old homeowner opened the door and immediately began shooting with his pistol. He missed the two people but killed the wife sitting in the car.

Dementia? Who knows? What is known is that an innocent woman is dead for no reason. Chances are that he will not be held culpable for that killing.

If some family member knows their father or mother has dementia, I believe they should make sure there are no guns in that house.

[MDLNB]

In yesterday's Daily Sun was an article about a shooting near St Pete, FL.

A 64 year old man and his 26 year old daughter walked up to a house and knocked on the door. They were looking for their lost dog. The 83 year old homeowner opened the door and immediately began shooting with his pistol. He missed the two people but killed the wife sitting in the car.

Dementia? Who knows? What is known is that an innocent woman is dead for no reason. Chances are that he will not be held culpable for that killing.

If some family member knows their father or mother has dementia, I believe they should make sure there are no guns in that house.

And make sure they are not driving a car or golf cart. That would certainly reduce traffic around here.

[Taltarzac725]

And make sure they are not driving a car or golf cart. That would certainly reduce traffic around here.

Probably not as there is a great deal of traffic.

Guns do come in handy. There should be common sense limitations on many aspects of the gun culture-- mental health testing, safety training, trigger locks against kids getting them, clip number of rounds, certain types of weapons, etc.

[Don Baldwin]

Probably not as there is a great deal of traffic.

Guns do come in handy. There should be common sense limitations on many aspects of the gun culture-- mental health testing, safety training, trigger locks against kids getting them, clip number of rounds, certain types of weapons, etc.

Well the Constitution guarantees the RIGHT to ARMS. Meaning anything used in warfare. The founders wanted the CITIZENS as defenders with their own "arms" to be used as/if necessary. They were supposed to be able to form local "well regulated militias". To defend themselves from anyone including an overly controlling government.

Ask the South how that "guarantee" worked out.

Now, "militias" are the bad guys and they want to limit us to pea shooters.

[Taltarzac725]

Well the Constitution guarantees the RIGHT to ARMS. Meaning anything used in warfare. The founders wanted the CITIZENS as defenders with their own "arms" to be used as/if necessary. They were supposed to be able to form local "well regulated militias". To defend themselves from anyone including an overly controlling government.

Ask the South how that "guarantee" worked out.

Now, "militias" are the bad guys and they want to limit us to pea shooters.

Read the actual 2nd Amendment. It is about the militia's right to bear arms. Or, that is how it sounds to me. It is written in an unclear manner.

[Don Baldwin]

Read the actual 2nd Amendment. It is about the militia's right to bear arms. Or, that is how it sounds to me. It is written in an unclear manner.

Didn't I say that? Citizens, forming well regulated militias, having military arms?

[Taltarzac725]

Didn't I say that? Citizens, forming well regulated militias, having military arms?

It is the militia's right to supply arms to the citizens is how I read it such as cannons and the like. Pretty much anyone living out on the frontier would need muskets to fend off bears, wolves, coyotes, and especially hostile Native American groups. There was a huge amount of wilderness still in the 1790s. Bill of Rights: Primary Documents of American History (Virtual Programs & Services, Library of Congress) (https://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/billofrights.html)

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

In yesterday's Daily Sun was an article about a shooting near St Pete, FL.

A 64 year old man and his 26 year old daughter walked up to a house and knocked on the door. They were looking for their lost dog. The 83 year old homeowner opened the door and immediately began shooting with his pistol. He missed the two people but killed the wife sitting in the car.

Dementia? Who knows? What is known is that an innocent woman is dead for no reason. Chances are that he will not be held culpable for that killing.

If some family member knows their father or mother has dementia, I believe they should make sure there are no guns in that house.

Not much different than taking away their car keys. I'm a responsible gun owner and a concealed carry permit holder and I agree 100% that people with mental issues should not be allowed to have guns.

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

Read the actual 2nd Amendment. It is about the militia's right to bear arms. Or, that is how it sounds to me. It is written in an unclear manner.

There were no standing armies at the time that the constitution was written. If the nation went to war, civilians were called in to form a militia and they were expected to have their own weapons.

Reading many of the papers that the 2nd amendment was based on you would find that one of the concerns of the founders was a tyrannical government taking control. They felt that citizens should be able to defend themselves in such a case.

In later years, the Supreme Court has ruled that the right to bear arms extends to all citizens for their own personal protection.

[MDLNB]

Yep, and technically the gov is over stepping it's authority by limiting the type of firearm. Military firearms include "assault" weapons. But, that is another discussion for another day and another thread.

The majority of guns are owned by responsible adults. Same as automobiles, power tools, swords, etc. You can't stop a bad guy from obtaining a gun, just as you cannot stop a bad guy from driving while revoked. You don't take away everyone's hot rod because one kid drag races. You don't ban something from everyone just to protect one person.

The gun question will never end until the gov completely rids everyone of owning a gun.

[rubicon]

Indeed this gun -related story is a tragedy. However why is it not also a continuing headline after every unborn is murdered with life-saving medical instruments? An irresponsible gun owner--an irresponsible and voluntary act by a woman.

The irony of it all , I cannot escape.

Personal Best Regards:

[MDLNB]

Indeed this gun -related story is a tragedy. However why is it not also a continuing headline after every unborn is murdered with life-saving medical instruments? An irresponsible gun owner--an irresponsible and voluntary act by a woman.

The irony of it all , I cannot escape.

Personal Best Regards:

That is a valid point.

On the other hand, a gun is for self-defense, defense of others, hunting, sport and national defense. An unborn child has only it's mother to defend it. And therein lies the shame, because once that mother gives up the act of defending the defenseless baby, it has no one else to protect it.

But, that is another subject.

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

Read the actual 2nd Amendment. It is about the militia's right to bear arms. Or, that is how it sounds to me. It is written in an unclear manner.

Over the years may Supreme Court Justices have read not only the amendment but the hundreds of papers leading up to and supporting the amendment. They have agreed, though not always unanimously, that the citizens of the country have a right to keep and bear arms.

[Don Baldwin]

Indeed this gun -related story is a tragedy. However why is it not also a continuing headline after every unborn is murdered with life-saving medical instruments? An irresponsible gun owner--an irresponsible and voluntary act by a woman.

The irony of it all , I cannot escape.

Personal Best Regards:

That is a valid point.

On the other hand, a gun is for self-defense, defense of others, hunting, sport and national defense. An unborn child has only it's mother to defend it. And therein lies the shame, because once that mother gives up the act of defending the defenseless baby, it has no one else to protect it.

But, that is another subject.

If the unborn babies had guns...they would use them in self defense. Don't let them take your guns...because without them, you're no different than those helpless babies.

Personally...I consider it a part of the mother until it is actually born and self supporting...meaning it doesn't need life support...it's a viable child. While it's inside...it's "her" and she is free to do to "herself" whatever she pleases.

Over the years may Supreme Court Justices have read not only the amendment but the hundreds of papers leading up to and supporting the amendment. They have agreed, though not always unanimously, that the citizens of the country have a right to keep and bear arms.

They also have the right to organize into local...well regulated...militias...with "arms"...the same arms as soldiers. We weren't supposed to have a standing army and an empire to defend. We were supposed to be free citizens each capable of defending themselves and the nation if need be. An entire "armed" populous ready, willing, and able to fight off aggressors.

Oh how we've strayed from the original charter.

[MDLNB]

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

Yep, and technically the gov is over stepping it's authority by limiting the type of firearm. Military firearms include "assault" weapons. But, that is another discussion for another day and another thread.

The majority of guns are owned by responsible adults. Same as automobiles, power tools, swords, etc. You can't stop a bad guy from obtaining a gun, just as you cannot stop a bad guy from driving while revoked. You don't take away everyone's hot rod because one kid drag races. You don't ban something from everyone just to protect one person.

The gun question will never end until the gov completely rids everyone of owning a gun.

Good luck with that. Even if they did I have no doubt that illegal guns would get into the country. And it wouldn't good responsible people that would get them.

I'm 65 years old. I have a bad back and a broken foot. I can't fight anymore and I can't run. What are my option for protecting myself?
A guy comes into a convenience store and starts shooting people. He has a gun, but if were up to some people I wouldn't be allowed to have one. I guess we're all supposed to just get shot and do nothing about it like those poor people in the "gun free" Fort Lauderdale airport.

[MDLNB]

Good luck with that. Even if they did I have no doubt that illegal guns would get into the country. And it wouldn't good responsible people that would get them.

I'm 65 years old. I have a bad back and a broken foot. I can't fight anymore and I can't run. What are my option for protecting myself?
A guy comes into a convenience store and starts shooting people. He has a gun, but if were up to some people I wouldn't be allowed to have one. I guess we're all supposed to just get shot and do nothing about it like those poor people in the "gun free" Fort Lauderdale airport.


I'm a senior and I carry everyday. No one sees it, no one knows. I am not paranoid. I have no reason to be paranoid when I carry. I do not care whether anyone thinks that guns are bad. If they do not like guns then they should not obtain one. If I am around when their family needs protection against the bad guy, I will protect their family for them. I am not concerned about myself as much as I wish to protect my family. A gun is just another tool, to be used for the right job. Otherwise, it stays put away out of sight. Most gun owners in America are responsible and good. The bad ones cannot be put down if they have the gun and you don't. I have no intention of being another victim, another statistic. I have no intention of denying someone else's right to be a victim if their aversion for guns is greater than their sense of self preservation.

But, not everyone purchases a weapon for protection. Some use them for hunting or sport (target shooting competition). And some are just collectors.

[Taltarzac725]

There were no standing armies at the time that the constitution was written. If the nation went to war, civilians were called in to form a militia and they were expected to have their own weapons.

Reading many of the papers that the 2nd amendment was based on you would find that one of the concerns of the founders was a tyrannical government taking control. They felt that citizens should be able to defend themselves in such a case.

In later years, the Supreme Court has ruled that the right to bear arms extends to all citizens for their own personal protection.

You seem to be forgetting that they had rather recently won a war against the greatest power on earth at that time-- Great Britain. And militias played a part in this victory. Militia in the Revolutionary War, Yorktown Victory Center (http://www.historyisfun.org/yorktown-victory-center/militia-in-the-revolutionary-war/)

But, they needed to be trained very well to beat these extremely efficient British users of cannon and muskets. Often though the members of militias would run away from the British.

[Don Baldwin]

I'm a senior and I carry everyday. No one sees it, no one knows. I am not paranoid. I have no reason to be paranoid when I carry. I do not care whether anyone thinks that guns are bad. If they do not like guns then they should not obtain one. If I am around when their family needs protection against the bad guy, I will protect their family for them. I am not concerned about myself as much as I wish to protect my family. A gun is just another tool, to be used for the right job. Otherwise, it stays put away out of sight. Most gun owners in America are responsible and good. The bad ones cannot be put down if they have the gun and you don't. I have no intention of being another victim, another statistic. I have no intention of denying someone else's right to be a victim if their aversion for guns is greater than their sense of self preservation.

But, not everyone purchases a weapon for protection. Some use them for hunting or sport (target shooting competition). And some are just collectors.

Maybe 50 years ago...but NOW the biggest group of "gun owners" are the inner city minorities. Just about EVERYONE in the ghetto has a gun. Gun violence is an inner city MINORITY problem. MOST violence is an inner city minority problem.

how many guns in the inner cities? - Google Search (https://www.google.com/search?q=how+many+guns+in+the+inner+cities%3F&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8)

You seem to be forgetting that they had rather recently won a war against the greatest power on earth at that time-- Great Britain. And militias played a part in this victory. Militia in the Revolutionary War, Yorktown Victory Center (http://www.historyisfun.org/yorktown-victory-center/militia-in-the-revolutionary-war/)

But, they needed to be trained very well to beat these extremely efficient British users of cannon and muskets. Often though the members of militias would run away from the British.

Hence the Constitutional GUARANTEE for the people to have "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". "Arms" being weapons of war. Cannons back then. And now...well we're SO far beyond what the founders wanted/imagined we can't keep up. The "people" can't possibly have bombers and fighter jets or nukes. We've gone from a "free" place where men could carve out their place...to an over arching EMPIRE, bent on controlling everything.

The "free state" referred to is BOTH freedom from foreign invaders...AND tyranny at home...like Lincoln denying the Southern states secession.

[Taltarzac725]

Inner-City Gun Violence | The Frontier Torts Project (http://learning.law.harvard.edu/frontiertorts/topics/inner-city-gun-violence/)

This is interesting. Hand it over to the lawyers and lawsuits against gun manufacturers. Worked fairly well with tobacco. At least tobacco use is less attractive and the users know more what they are getting into even if some still smoke.

[MDLNB]

Once again, regarding OTHER than just a militia:

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

The founders never intended it's citizens to be defenseless against criminals.


But, back to the 2nd Amendment regarding an armed militia, a military weapon is usually an assault weapon. To outlaw them should be construed as unconstitutional and voiding the premise of the 2nd Amendment. I do not feel the need for an assault weapon, but will the government limit it's definition of "assault weapon" to machine guns, or fully automatic weapons? Because many of us have military surplus weapons that do shoot semi-automatic, and so do most of the pistols sold today. Military weapons are technically weapons of war, or assault weapons. It is interesting that the same people that wish to limit and re-define what is considered an assault weapon are the same people that do not know the difference between automatic and semi-automatic and magazine versus ammo clip.

But to link this diatribe to the subject of the thread, this incident proves the value of more GOOD competent citizens being equipped with firearms.

[Sandtrap328]

Back to the original post, though.

What culpability should the 83 year old man face for killing the woman? Surely he has dementia to start shooting as soon as soon as he opened his front door. State mental institution for his remaining years?

Does everyone agree that his family should have removed guns from his house - assuming they knew he was of deminished mental capacity?

Should a doctor report to police that a dementia patient has a gun at home and it should be confiscated? Should doctors be required to ask dementia patients or their families if guns are present in the house?

[MDLNB]

Back to the original post, though.

What culpability should the 83 year old man face for killing the woman? Surely he has dementia to start shooting as soon as soon as he opened his front door. State mental institution for his remaining years?

Does everyone agree that his family should have removed guns from his house - assuming they knew he was of deminished mental capacity?

Should a doctor report to police that a dementia patient has a gun at home and it should be confiscated? Should doctors be required to ask dementia patients or their families if guns are present in the house?


In my opinion the answer to the first regarding his family -- yes, they should have attempted to take his gun. But, they should not be held liable for their negligence.

No, I doubt any doctor knows their patient well enough to know whether or not they have weapons at home.
No, a doctor should not be required to ask if a patient has a weapon.

These incidents are not the norm. You cannot protect everyone from every possible scenario.

If you want to stop some murders, then do something about the big cities and the gang violence. Get rid of ALL illegal drugs to start with. Charge any distributor with manslaughter and get them off the street. Dry up the source and you lower the violence. Instead of giving these cretins so many second and third chances, jail them or execute them for all I care. Get them off the street and the street will be safer. Put them back on the street and take the responsibility of any new violence they perpetrate.

Most violence today is related to drugs and alcohol. Start there.

[dirtbanker]

utm_term=.40b00f51b77c

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

[dirtbanker]

Armed civilian kills suspect, saving life of Ariz. trooper ‘ambushed’ on highway, police say - The Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/01/13/armed-civilian-kills-suspect-saving-life-of-ariz-trooper-ambushed-on-highway/?utm_term=.40b00f51b77c)

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

[Sandtrap328]

Armed civilian kills suspect, saving life of Ariz. trooper ‘ambushed’ on highway, police say - The Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/01/13/armed-civilian-kills-suspect-saving-life-of-ariz-trooper-ambushed-on-highway/?utm_term=.40b00f51b77c)

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

Far different than a demented 83 year old who begins firing his gun when opening the front door to people looking for a lost dog and kills a woman sitting in the car.

[MDLNB]

Inner-City Gun Violence | The Frontier Torts Project (http://learning.law.harvard.edu/frontiertorts/topics/inner-city-gun-violence/)

This is interesting. Hand it over to the lawyers and lawsuits against gun manufacturers. Worked fairly well with tobacco. At least tobacco use is less attractive and the users know more what they are getting into even if some still smoke.


I doubt you are going to find a judge that is willing to find a gun manufacturer guilty when the gun was made to kill and it did what it was supposed to do. But, on the other hand, liberals and liberals in charge never cease to amaze me. Kind of like charging a car manufacturer with the responsibility of a DUI violation.

[Chi-Town]

I'm a senior and I carry everyday. No one sees it, no one knows. I am not paranoid. I have no reason to be paranoid when I carry. I do not care whether anyone thinks that guns are bad. If they do not like guns then they should not obtain one. If I am around when their family needs protection against the bad guy, I will protect their family for them. I am not concerned about myself as much as I wish to protect my family. A gun is just another tool, to be used for the right job. Otherwise, it stays put away out of sight. Most gun owners in America are responsible and good. The bad ones cannot be put down if they have the gun and you don't. I have no intention of being another victim, another statistic. I have no intention of denying someone else's right to be a victim if their aversion for guns is greater than their sense of self preservation.

But, not everyone purchases a weapon for protection. Some use them for hunting or sport (target shooting competition). And some are just collectors.
Let me guess......is this your gun?

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170114/973fa05256de0546bba42fbc0e6a9449.jpg




Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

[Don Baldwin]

Inner-City Gun Violence | The Frontier Torts Project (http://learning.law.harvard.edu/frontiertorts/topics/inner-city-gun-violence/)

This is interesting. Hand it over to the lawyers and lawsuits against gun manufacturers. Worked fairly well with tobacco. At least tobacco use is less attractive and the users know more what they are getting into even if some still smoke.

Lets also...while we're at it...go after hammer makers because people have used hammers. Screwdriver makers too...screwdrivers have been used to kill people.

The PROBLEM is violent black/brown people. THAT s where most of the killings come from. Why do we even care? Chicago...BLACKS...what was it over 800 in 2016? MOST were black...good riddance...800 less mouths to feed.

WHAT do they as a people, as a group, bring to the table? What good are they?

Blacks use machetes in Africa to commit their genocide against other blacks. They'll find a way to kill each other. Guns really aren't a problem with white people. Sure, someone flips out every once in a while...but the total numbers PALE compared to those of the minorities.

In my opinion the answer to the first regarding his family -- yes, they should have attempted to take his gun. But, they should not be held liable for their negligence.

No, I doubt any doctor knows their patient well enough to know whether or not they have weapons at home.
No, a doctor should not be required to ask if a patient has a weapon.

These incidents are not the norm. You cannot protect everyone from every possible scenario.

If you want to stop some murders, then do something about the big cities and the gang violence. Get rid of ALL illegal drugs to start with. Charge any distributor with manslaughter and get them off the street. Dry up the source and you lower the violence. Instead of giving these cretins so many second and third chances, jail them or execute them for all I care. Get them off the street and the street will be safer. Put them back on the street and take the responsibility of any new violence they perpetrate.

Most violence today is related to drugs and alcohol. Start there.

Exactly...stay in your "safe room" if you absolute safety...but don't subject ME to increased violence because your pets start acting up. They want safety and yet they ENCOURAGE more of those who are most violent...minorities.

Alcohol...it TOPS the list when it comes to being stupid and being violent. It's literally poisoning you.

I doubt you are going to find a judge that is willing to find a gun manufacturer guilty when the gun was made to kill and it did what it was supposed to do. But, on the other hand, liberals and liberals in charge never cease to amaze me. Kind of like charging a car manufacturer with the responsibility of a DUI violation.

You're dealing with women...emotional...illogical...women. Don't expect to understand them. Can you understand a schizophrenic? They'll all schizophrenic...it's ONLY the degree that is different.