Totally false. In the vast majority of defensive uses of guns, no shots are ever fired. Seeing that a victim is armed is often enough of a deterrent to send the assailant on to softer targets. Sure, the real crazies or methheads might not care. But criminals who want to stay alive don't pick on people they know will offer up armed resistance.

What ever happened to a person taking personal responsibility for their own security? Why does it always have to fall on someone else? Did our forefathers not instruct such, as per amendments 2 and 10 of the U.S. constitution?


The majority of the traffic on this topic (both here and on posts of the various news outlets) appears to revolve around laws and security. Is there anyone out there who can demonstrate how laws provide security or how security provides laws? One cannot reasonably provide for the other. The two are independent and unrelated of one another. Our forefathers were very ingenious and wise.

Interesting debate on "intended function".

What is the intended function of the electric chair?

To end life or deter crime.

Seems if it fails at the later then the former becomes the intended function.

It's all a matter of circumstance/perspective and really irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Edit: I personally have no issue with the intended function of a gun being "to deliver a bullet with enough force to seriously injure or kill". I hope I'm never in the position of having to point one at someone and pull the trigger but if I am I hope to hell it works as advertised.

You must be miserable in SW Ohio, Land of John A. Boehner (R) Speaker of the United States House of Representatives.

I'm sure that you would opine that Speaker Boehner also stands by his beliefs and doesn't let facts get in the way. But that's okay too. I'll proudly stand by a fellow Reading Boy. :D

Surprisingly, California is probably no more strict than any other state when it comes to mental health and guns.

I once stood outside in the hot sun for 3 hours while a self proclaimed "gun nut" holed up inside his parents house, refusing to come outside after threatening his family members who in turn called the police. (This guy was the proverbial "on the internet in his mother's basement" without the basement loser)

Anyway, after 3 hours, he came out, and I placed him on a 72 hour mental health evaluation hold (5150 W&I Code). Other officers took MANY guns out of the house for "safekeeping", including several military style rifles with high capacity mags.

45 minutes later he was released. And we had no charges on which to arrest him. (family members always cease to cooperate the split second after you get the "problem" out of their house.) So No Victim = No Crime.

I would bet a paycheck that there were other guns in that house that we could not find. And I'm sure that the guns were released back to him (or one of his parents) after a "waiting period."

You want a remedy? Make it a Felony with mandatory sentencing and minimum times served for possession of any magazine with a capacity higher than 5 rounds.

I am a staunch defender of the second amendment, but Speeder has it right on this one. The constitution guarantees the right to bear arms but I see no protections for "accessories". And don't give me that "implied" argument. We conservatives can't have it both ways. We are either strict constitutionalists or we are not.

So what's the right number? 5? 10? 2?

Why not ban anything but muskets then? IIRC the wording is "shall not be infringed." Funny how that doesn't matter if it's about guns, but, even though abortion appears nowhere in the Constitution, people scream that same right exists for that. Or how "shall enjoy the right to counsel" now means a free public defender at taxpayer expense.

Why couldn't you charge that guy with violating CA's ban on mags of over 10 rounds? Didn't he have some of those for his rifles? There are probably 5x as many hi-cap. magazines in circulation as there are semi-auto guns. Why do you think banning them would take a single one out of circulation? I'm a moderate and I'd never turn one of mine in.

It won't Rick.

Because its man made, politics like religion is flawed...the sooner we all accept this fact the sooner we can all come together...or not. Meanwhile, I think we all should just focus on trying to stay focused...

5 is the right number. Like a small wheel gun.

The gun control nazi's would argue that the capacity should be 1.

And that's why we have a supreme court. And that's why elections matter.

Normal people snap all the time and do all sorts of weird schit. A man can go home and find his wife in bed with his friend and then get very angry at the world and start killing people. If he has firearm handy, I'm sure that would be the choice.

Esel Mann, You should read all my posts don't take one out of context and imply that I think a law should replace personal responsibility. I do think people should be responsible for their own security. If you read my other posts on this thread you will see that on several occasions I have said I have no problem with people carrying and going into a store. I think overall it would curtail crime. The bad guy may think twice before holding up a store, mugging a person or car jacking someone at a light. Not to take this thread off topic but I think people should should be responsible for themselves in many other areas as well. I don't want to subsidies food stamps, unemployment or housing. NOTHING. I have my family and I am responsible for them. Not someone Else's unless I feel compelled to help.

Now back on topic. In addition to being responsible for their own security I think there are certain instances that people should be able to expect a certain level of security over and above what they do for themselves. Especially in cases where their are compelled to be somewhere by law or in places where a higher propensity for violence may exists.

My suggestion is an alternative to placing more laws on the public and on gun owners. The last thing I think our country needs are more laws to criminalize law abiding citizens which are the far majority in this country.

No law is going to stop a person who isn't in their right mind. Whether it be from drugs, alcohol, schizophrenia you name it. What may work is trying to set up a line of defense so a person like this can not gain access to people in certain situations that could cause mass injuries while possessing a weapon.

Just for thought..

Firearm in Sarasota jail prompts review | Cor-Spec-Ops

2 separate searches not enough as man smuggles loaded gun into jail cell

What kind of hand gun laws do they have in Cook county IL?
Cook County suspect sneaks gun into jail, courthouse - Chicago Tribune

See, new laws won't help, but enforcing the current laws just might...

If you're referring to the AZ shooting, not sure if any laws were broken before the incident.

IMHO, it's a mistake to apply draconian security measures without addressing some reasons why there's a threat in the first place, then perhaps draconian measures won't be needed which are largely ineffective in the long run (RE: mideast). Reducing hate speech and loose-lipped macho language are a couple of things that people can control, either at the source or from public pressure. And it always helps to have a well-informed govt. and populace able to filter the wheat from the chafe. Hopefully, this will keep the borderline-types among us at bay.

Sherwood

I live in Tucson and just heard some more disturbing news about this tragic event. Those nut jobs from the Westboro Baptist Church, the same group that protest at soldiers funerals, are planning on coming here to Tucson to protest at 9 year old Christina Green's funeral. I am speechless about how they can do this. My daughters go to Catholic School and we received an e-mail today that the school is closing on Thursday for the funeral which is going to be at our church. We didn't know this little girl but it really hurts me because my oldest daughter is 8 years old and I can't imagine how I could cope with losing her. To have a hate group protest an innocent little girl's funeral is just sick. They are actually praising the shooter.

Its axe handle time for the Westboro Baptist Church, and yes I meant that as hate speech.

off the top of my head:

are you addicted to drugs?


are you a convicted felon?

are or have you been adjudicated mentally ill?

have you ever been arrested for domestic violence?

are you a citizen of the u.s.?

are you currently under indictment?

are you on parole?

if you answer yes to any BUT are you a citizen of the u.s. YER 86'd from buying a spoon.

standard background check thru az. d.p.s.(the BIG LAW DAWGS of the state) under normal circumstances takes about 10 minutes. dps does the state check and then runs yer azz thru FBI check.

Heard about WBC this morning. There is likely a "shield" being organized already. Find out the details then show up and be an active participant.

i think a better way would be to hand out to these clowns (WBC) TRAYFULS OF BROWNIES..............nice pretty yummy warm brownies.



YOU KNOW THE KIND LIKE MOM USED TO MAKE filled with ..................EX-LAX and have every toilet padlocked for a mile around the church.



these guys want attention at a little girls funeral.....................we will give them attention!

Our local gun BBS has WBC's schedule for the event on their site so counterprotesters can keep them away. I doubt the WBC nuts will get close. If I weren't going out of town this week for a while, I'd consider joining the counterprotesters.