A gun in the right hands?

» Site Navigation
Home Page The Villages Maps The Villages Activities The Villages Clubs The Villages Book Healthcare Rentals Real Estate Section Classified Section The Villages Directory Home Improvement Site Guidelines Advertising Info Register Now Video Tutorials Frequently Asked Questions
» Newsletter Signup
» Premium Tower
» Advertisements
» Trending News
» Tower Sponsors




















» Premium Sponsors
» Banner Sponsors
» Advertisements
 
Thread Tools
  #16  
Old 01-14-2017, 06:48 AM
Guest
n/a
 
Join Date: n/a
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest
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.
  #17  
Old 01-14-2017, 07:16 AM
Guest
n/a
 
Join Date: n/a
Location: n/a
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest
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.
  #18  
Old 01-14-2017, 08:07 AM
Guest
n/a
 
Join Date: n/a
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest
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

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.
  #19  
Old 01-14-2017, 08:42 AM
Guest
n/a
 
Join Date: n/a
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest
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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest
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

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.
  #20  
Old 01-14-2017, 08:47 AM
Guest
n/a
 
Join Date: n/a
Posts: n/a
Default

Inner-City Gun Violence | The Frontier Torts Project

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.
  #21  
Old 01-14-2017, 08:49 AM
Guest
n/a
 
Join Date: n/a
Location: n/a
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  #22  
Old 01-14-2017, 09:08 AM
Guest
n/a
 
Join Date: n/a
Posts: n/a
Default

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?
  #23  
Old 01-14-2017, 09:19 AM
Guest
n/a
 
Join Date: n/a
Location: n/a
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest
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.
  #24  
Old 01-14-2017, 11:26 AM
Guest
n/a
 
Join Date: n/a
Location: n/a
Posts: n/a
Default

utm_term=.40b00f51b77c

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
  #25  
Old 01-14-2017, 11:27 AM
Guest
n/a
 
Join Date: n/a
Location: n/a
Posts: n/a
Default

Armed civilian kills suspect, saving life of Ariz. trooper ‘ambushed’ on highway, police say - The Washington Post

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
  #26  
Old 01-14-2017, 11:55 AM
Guest
n/a
 
Join Date: n/a
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest
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.
  #27  
Old 01-14-2017, 12:29 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Join Date: n/a
Location: n/a
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest
Inner-City Gun Violence | The Frontier Torts Project

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.
  #28  
Old 01-14-2017, 12:40 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Join Date: n/a
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MDLNB View Post
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?

The Villages Florida




Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
  #29  
Old 01-14-2017, 01:03 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Join Date: n/a
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest
Inner-City Gun Violence | The Frontier Torts Project

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest
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.
 

Tags
house, year, hands, gun

Thread Tools

You are viewing a new design of the TOTV site. Click here to revert to the old version.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:25 PM.