Omaha Shootings: Selfish Act of a Bastard

[Office_Shredder]

Really? So Americans can go around the world and change whatever the hell the like about other countries and their way of living, but whenever any questions that the US constitution is somewhat outdated the shutters come down. That sounds rather hypocritical to me.

Give an example of Americans going around the world changing "whatever the hell they like about other countries and their way of living". And demonstrate how the change is arbitrary or based solely on America's whims for that country's way of living

 

[scorpa]

No. We get the same messages every day on different issues. US citizens of a certain age remember "55 saves lives". We could prevent countless traffic deaths every year by enforcing a universal speed limit of 25 mph. We would also cripple our economy, our systems for distributing food and medicines, and kill businesses that rely on commuters to staff them. There are risks in life. If the perpetrator had not owned a gun, he might have constructed bombs, or might have ambushed his victims with knives, which would have been a lot quieter and might have allowed him to kill more people. You cannot pre-empt the actions of psychotics by removing every method of attack.

My wife and I live way out in the country, over 20 minutes away from the nearest law-enforcement station (sheriff's department, state police barracks). If some creep tries a home invasion here, my 911 call will be to get somebody to come get the body, not to ask for protection and ride out the invasion. I have a Glock 20 (10mm auto) and I am deadly accurate with it.

I 100% agree. Good post turbo.

 

[Cyrus]

Not yet, you don't; but that's because we had a PM that, for some strange reason, worshipped George Bush.

I'm not saying that we're going to come over and change things; I'm just giving you my opinion. I don't see why so many Americans won't even stop and think about this problem: everyone seems to immediately jump on the defensive taking the line "it's my rights." Like I said before; times change. There's a reason that criminals aren't imprisoned and tortured in the tower of london anymore, or why they aren't hanged and their heads put on posts outside the city gates.

Protecting your rights is an invariant property of being an American. We do not trade rights for temporary comfort. If you ask us to do this you esentially are slapping what America stands for in the face. This is why we get 'defensive'. You don't give up everyones rights to save, 'just one life'. One life is NOT worth giving up our rights, in fact hundreds of thousands of americans have died over the years so this does NOT happen.

 

[cristo]

We do not trade rights for temporary comfort.

Even if that "temporary comfort" will in fact save lives?

Meh.. this is pointless. Clearly, if there are so many of you who want to own handguns/weapons and are "a deadly shot," then there's no persuading your country to see sense. I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens, and see how this problem escalates.

 

[Cyrus]

I thought I just said no. Liberty > Lives.

Id rather have my entire family be shot dead by a nut job than put into slave camp by a government. Now are you starting to get why we don't trade away rights?

 

[Evo]

As I stated previously, it's unlikely that we will ever see guns banned in the US. I'm not for a ban, I happen to enjoy shooting handguns. I don't own one, but my first husband got into them and took me many times to the firing range, turns out I'm an excellent shot.

What I *do* want to see is better gun laws. I don't think the mentally ill should have access to guns and I don't see any reason any citizen needs an assault weapon. I believe in common sense when it comes to guns.

I grew up in Texas where there were a LOT of pickup trucks and it was rare to see one that didn't have a shotgun prominently displayed in the rear window gun rack. At that time it was also legal to drink and drive, with your gun, of course. So, growing up around guns, one tends to understand that the ratio of guns to shooting people is very small. I can see where growing up in a country that doesn't allow them it can seem very strange that they are so widely accepted here.

 

[cristo]

Id rather have my entire family be shot dead by a nut job than put into slave camp by a government.

But noone's talking about putting you in a slave camp; the discussion is about taking away guns.

Now are you starting to get why we don't trade away rights?

Nope.. I think you just made a rather foolish analogy.

What I *do* want to see is better gun laws. I don't think the mentally ill should have access to guns and I don't see any reason any citizen needs an assault weapon. I believe in common sense when it comes to guns.

Good suggestions. If everyone thought like this, then there would be no problem!

 

[Astronuc]

As I stated previously, it's unlikely that we will ever see guns banned in the US. I'm not for a ban, I happen to enjoy shooting handguns. I don't own one, but my first husband got into them and took me many times to the firing range, turns out I'm an excellent shot.

What I *do* want to see is better gun laws. I don't think the mentally ill should have access to guns and I don't see any reason any citizen needs an assault weapon. I believe in common sense when it comes to guns.

Hmmm. Sounds very presidential to me.

 

[Cyrus]

But noone's talking about putting you in a slave camp; the discussion is about taking away guns.

Nope.. I think you just made a rather foolish analogy.


Good suggestions. If everyone thought like this, then there would be no problem!

This tells me you have no clue as to why our constituiton gives us guns. The analogy is spot on.

 

[turbo]

I have heard three different news reports on the Omaha killings and every single one of them stated that the killer used an AK-47. That is a flat-out lie that deserves to be retracted (and never will be). The killer used a cheap Chinese semi-automatic rifle (SKS) that cosmetically resembles an AK-47. AK-47s are fully-automatic machine guns. The SKS is actually a lot less lethal than many common semi-automatic hunting rifles. If some guy is coming after me with an SKS, I'd have him way over-gunned if I had a 45-year-old Remington Model 742 chambered for .30-06 to use in my defense. With my deadly accurate old Winchester lever-action carbines, I'd have the upper hand, too.

As for women and handguns, women are better instinctive shooters than men, in my experience, and that is critical to handgun accuracy. My wife is a natural, and although my Glock Model 20 is too much of a handful for her (the reason that it was not universally adopted by police departments in favor of the powerful 10mm auto chambering), she has no problem handling .38s, 9mm, etc. She really enjoys pistol shooting, and when my old friend and his wife took a break for a few days from their import jewelry business, we set aside a whole afternoon to spend shooting pistols at an informal range (sand pit) near here. His wife had never shot pistols before (city girl from Chicago) and it turns out that she's pretty darned good at it and had a blast. To save money, we shot quite a few boxes of .22 and .22 magnums, but we went through a few boxes of 9mm and 10mm autos, too.

 

[cristo]

This tells me you have no clue as to why our constituiton gives us guns. The analogy is spot on.

Of course I know why your constitution gave you guns. I doubt you'd really be able to overthrow a government with "people power" in this day and age, though!

Anyway, this is a pointless discussion. You've got your opinions, I've got mine, and they're never going to coincide.

 

[Evo]

I think perhaps the fact that guns were almost a necessity in the US 200 years ago when the constitution was written might have a "little" bit to do with the right to bear arms being important then. Had the constitution been written before firearms were invented would we have the right to bear bows and arrows?

I've always wondered if the term "bear arms" specifically means fire arms, or is it just assumed?

 

[turbo]

I 100% agree. Good post turbo.

Thanks, Scorpa. In this day of instant news coverage, we hear of all the sensational developments, and the networks looking for ratings play it up to the hilt. Every one of the reports I watched tonight said that "the gunman used an AK-47" which is a load of crap. He had a cheap Chinese SKS semi-automatic rifle, not a machine gun. Still, in the minds of every cow-brained idiot in the US, there will linger the "truth" that the kid had a machine gun. That's pretty stupid. Remington, Browning, and many other manufactures produce semi-automatic hunting rifles that are far more powerful, accurate and reliable than that piece of junk. Apart from clip capacity, the average deer/elk hunter has far more effective firepower every time they go into the field to hunt.

 

[cristo]

I think perhaps the fact that guns were almost a necessity in the US 200 years ago when the constitution was written might have a "little" bit to do with the right to bear arms being important then. Had the constitution been written before firearms were invented would we have the right to bear bows and arrows?

I've always wondered if the term "bear arms" specifically means fire arms, or is it just assumed?

It probably does mean any kind of arms, but in this day and age firearms is just assumed.

I read on the bbc news website a while ago that, whilst police in england were worried about illegal possession of firearms, and were cracking down on it, the police force in scotland were equally worried about the illegal possession of crossbows! I can't find the reference anymore, though.

 

[Evo]

It probably does mean any kind of arms, but in this day and age firearms is just assumed.

I've always wondered if having a fully armed siege engine aimed at my psycho neighbor's house is allowable under my right to bear arms? If not, can I carry around a bomb if that's my choice of arms?

I read on the bbc news website a while ago that, whilst police in england were worried about illegal possession of firearms, and were cracking down on it, the police force in scotland were equally worried about the illegal possession of crossbows! I can't find the reference anymore, though.

I remember reading about that too.

 

[Moonbear]

Even if that "temporary comfort" will in fact save lives?

Even if. That is a key difference between the US and Britain, and part of the fundamental premise for establishing the US as a separate nation, that the rights of the individual are strongly protected. And, as pointed out, there is no guarantee that banning guns would save lives. In the state where I live, it might even lead to loss of life, as poor people dependent on hunting for food would lose that food source.

In the case of the desperately psychotic person who would open fire on a mall, as turbo pointed out, rather than a rifle, he may well have walked in with a homemade bomb strapped to his body, and killed and maimed even more people than he could hit with a rifle. People bent on killing other people will find ways to do it.

As Evo pointed out, unless someone has barred the exits (like the VT shooter did), with a firearm, the first shot notifies people something is going on so they can flee. Someone going through silently stabbing people is going to cause a commotion near each stabbing, but would take more time for the entire mall to start realizing something is happening. Heck, a commotion with no clear reason might draw more people toward the killer rather than scare them away the way a gunshot does.

By the way, one of the people being reported as wounded wasn't even shot...he fell into a clothing rack while trying to run away, and sustained his injuries that way.

I realize the British view will be entirely at odds with the American view on this, but that's why we're not still British Colonies, because we don't agree on the extent to which individual freedoms trump society's wishes.

 

[turbo]

I think perhaps the fact that guns were almost a necessity in the US 200 years ago when the constitution was written might have a "little" bit to do with the right to bear arms being important then. Had the constitution been written before firearms were invented would we have the right to bear bows and arrows?

I've always wondered if the term "bear arms" specifically means fire arms, or is it just assumed?

At the time the constitution was written, the US was coming off a period of British rule. (Duh! you know that.) My point is that under British rule, the male colonists were required to serve as militia-men in lieu of Britain having to field a huge standing army in the colonies. These colonial men were mustered and shipped off to Nova Scotia, marched off to the Hudson Valley, etc, to fight the French and secure the influence of the British crown in the new world. When the colonists decided to "kick the traces", the British sent regular army to try to seize the muskets, powder, and ball from the armories that they had required the militias to establish to keep themselves suitably armed. The colonists often managed to successfully defend their arms, sometimes by using selective-fire tactics that they learned as Rangers, as opposed to using ranked-formation and volley-firing tactics favored by the British regulars, with their European line-up-in-a-field-and-kill-each-other training. Using these arms, including the ubiquitous Brown Bess, and the Charleville muskets bought from France, the colonial forces defeated the British regular army and their Hessian mercenaries.

When the founding fathers drew up the Constitution, they knew that the security of our country could be more easily negated by an enemy if armament was limited and centralized, and that the best way to prevent tyranny was to keep armament diffuse, common, and hard to seize. The founding fathers were not a bunch of dummies, and the 2nd amendment should get a lot more historical respect than it does. The concepts underlying its inclusion have not gone away.

 

[cristo]

I've always wondered if having a fully armed siege engine aimed at my psycho neighbor's house is allowable under my right to bear arms? If not, can I carry around a bomb if that's my choice of arms?

It's a good point. I'd imagine that it specifies somewhere that such items aren't allowed. I guess in the end it's up to the judge you get facing you. I doubt that you'd be able to argue that someone taking your bomb off you was a breach of your constitutional rights; especially not nowadays!

 

[Cyrus]

It's a good point. I'd imagine that it specifies somewhere that such items aren't allowed. I guess in the end it's up to the judge you get facing you. I doubt that you'd be able to argue that someone taking your bomb off you was a breach of your constitutional rights; especially not nowadays!

...having a bomb is illegal. There is no point here.

 

[Moonbear]

When the founding fathers drew up the Constitution, they knew that the security of our country could be more easily negated by an enemy if armament was limited and centralized, and that the best way to prevent tyranny was to keep armament diffuse, common, and hard to seize. The founding fathers were not a bunch of dummies, and the 2nd amendment should get a lot more historical respect than it does. The concepts underlying its inclusion have not gone away.

Taken in the appropriate historical context, it argues that every neighborhood or town should have an armory available to the citizens, and should train the citizens to use those arms ("well-regulated" refers more to training than things like licensing). It doesn't necessarily mean everyone needs to keep firearms within their home, but that having a dispersed arsenal readily available in case of attack is essential to national security. Personally, I prefer that a deranged kid can only get ahold of one or two firearms and not have an entire arsenal to break into. Basically, it would support things like gun clubs.

 

[Cyrus]

Doesnt everyone in Israel have a firearm because they are required to serve in the army once they are 18?

The way I see it, every American should serve in the Army when 18 and be given a fully auto rifle, like in Swizerland and many other countries. You are trained to defend yourself and you have a gun to do so. I think most countries make you serve 2 years, and you can do other things than soldiering.

 

[turbo]

Doesnt everyone in Isreal have a firearm because they are required to serve in the army once they are 18?

The way I see it, every American should serve in the Army when 18 and be given a fully auto rifle, like in Swizerland and many other countries. You are trained to defend yourself and you have a gun to do so. I think most countries make you serve 2 years, and you can do other things than soldiering.

That's really not necessary in places like Maine. No foreign invader would try to invade here because there are way more guns than households here, and even trying to take control of roads would be impossible if the populace decided to resist. A more sensible target would be Boston, where people have to jump through hoops to even own a handgun and where a well-placed RPG into a LNG tanker would decimate the waterfront and most of the center of the city.

I have a Ruger Model 1 single-shot rifle in .45-70 with custom loads with heavy slugs (450-500 gr) that approach 2000 fps. There are lots of folks up here with 7mm magnums and other hot rifles that are very accurate, and that no personal body armor is designed to resist. Is Maine therefore immune from invasion? No, but the insurgency would be effective and costly to the invaders.

 

[Evo]

...having a bomb is illegal. There is no point here.

The second ammendment does not specify what is meant by arms. So to say the second ammendment means we have the right to specifically carry guns is not correct. I've started looking into this and there are a lot arguments over what the second ammendment really means. Why are bombs illegal and guns legal?

MISC5 CONGRESSIONAL DECLARATION OF PURPOSE
Section 1101 of title XI of Pub. L. 91-452 provided that: ''The Congress hereby declares that the purpose of this title (enacting this chapter amending section 2516 of this title, repealing section 837 of this title and sections 121 to 144 of Title 50, War and National Defense, and enacting provisions set out as notes under this section) is to protect interstate and foreign commerce against interference and interruption by reducing the hazard to persons and property arising from misuse and unsafe or insecure storage of explosive materials. It is not the purpose of this title to place any undue or unnecessary Federal restrictions or burdens on law-abiding citizens with respect to the acquisition, possession, storage, or use of explosive materials for industrial, mining, agricultural, or other lawful purposes, or to provide for the imposition by Federal regulations of any procedures or requirements other than those reasonably necessary to implement and effectuate the provisions of this title.''

http://trac.syr.edu/laws/18USC841.html

So possesion of explosives is ok for "other lawful purposes", what is the "lawful purpose" of a handgun?

 

[cristo]

Is Maine therefore immune from invasion? No, but the insurgency would be effective and costly to the invaders.

You don't actually think that any foreign military force is going to try and invade the US, do you?

 

[turbo]

Taken in the appropriate historical context, it argues that every neighborhood or town should have an armory available to the citizens, and should train the citizens to use those arms ("well-regulated" refers more to training than things like licensing). It doesn't necessarily mean everyone needs to keep firearms within their home, but that having a dispersed arsenal readily available in case of attack is essential to national security. Personally, I prefer that a deranged kid can only get ahold of one or two firearms and not have an entire arsenal to break into. Basically, it would support things like gun clubs.

It would be nice to see that every person who wanted to hunt, target-shoot, etc would get an opportunity to do that on a regular basis. I have had clients in a previous job run into limitations on how they could legally own pistols in NYC, how often they could transport them, and where they could transport them to. Some of the state and municipal laws are inane, and they serve only to constrain the decent people who try to abide by them. I don't advocate an immediate country-wide revocation of municipal regulations and state laws, but they should be examined and rolled back incrementally. Some of the areas with the highest rates of violent crime have the most draconian firearms regulations, leaving residents/homeowners defenseless against the predations of criminals who have guns.

 

[Cyrus]

It could be foreign, or the US government itself. How do you know this won't happen?

 

[Evo]

That's really not necessary in places like Maine. No foreign invader would try to invade here because there are way more guns than households here, and even trying to take control of roads would be impossible if the populace decided to resist. A more sensible target would be Boston, where people have to jump through hoops to even own a handgun and where a well-placed RPG into a LNG tanker would decimate the waterfront and most of the center of the city.

They would just bomb Maine. Kind of like Indiana Jones shooting the swordmaster. Why would an invading force contemplate hand to hand battle with the residents? Give me your lobsters!

 

[turbo]

You don't actually think that any foreign military force is going to try and invade the US, do you?

No. In the time that the US was being established, that was a distinct and ever-present possibility. Nowadays, the threat is internal. The 2nd amendment is as relevant as ever.

 

[turbo]

They would just bomb Maine. Kind of like Indiana Jones shooting the swordmaster. Why would an invading force contemplate hand to hand battle with the residents?

We are too big and thinly-settle to bomb. This isn't WWII Japan. the point is that this state could not be occupied easily, and neither could a whole lot of states outside of NY, RI, MA, MD, CT, CA, OH, PA, and a few others.

If you want my lobsters, you'll have to pry them from my cold dead fingers.

 

[Moonbear]

You don't actually think that any foreign military force is going to try and invade the US, do you?

Of course not...Canada knows all those Mainiacs are armed...hmm...so is Detroit (not necessarily legally)...North Dakota is pretty big on hunting...yeah, I think if they were going to try to invade, it would have to be through Washington state, and we'd have them cornered and sent back across the border in no time.

 

[cristo]

It could be foreign, or the US government itself. How do you know this won't happen?

There'd be no foreign invasion, since the only point in an invasion would be to try and overthrow the government, and occupy the country. This doesn't happen to superpowers! If anyone has a problem that's that big, then it will simply end in a nuclear war.

It could be a US government invasion, but isn't it a little paranoid to be thinking like that? Afterall, they are the people that you elected to run your country! Besides, the rest of the world would step in way before it got to civilians fighting the army and the government.

 

[Evo]

We are too big and thinly-settle to bomb. This isn't WWII Japan. the point is that this state could not be occupied easily, and neither could a whole lot of states outside of NY, RI, MA, MD, CT, CA, OH, PA, and a few others.

Bombing would make much more sense. Just obliterate the key areas, no one cares about people in remote areas. They have nothing of importance and are nowhere of strategic importance. I don't think that homeowners with guns would be a deterrant to an armed force with bombs.

 

[Astronuc]

...North Dakota is pretty big on hunting...

North Dakota is the least visited state.

http://img2.travelblog.org/Photos/20079/119326/f/818641-Least-Visited-State-In-The-US-0.jpg

 

[Cyrus]

There'd be no foreign invasion, since the only point in an invasion would be to try and overthrow the government, and occupy the country. This doesn't happen to superpowers! If anyone has a problem that's that big, then it will simply end in a nuclear war.

It could be a US government invasion, but isn't it a little paranoid to be thinking like that? Afterall, they are the people that you elected to run your country! Besides, the rest of the world would step in way before it got to civilians fighting the army and the government.

Are you nostradamus? I don't understand how you speak of what will happen in the future as if it were a fact. Did any nuclear bombs go off in the invation of Iraq? They are fightings us dirty with guns because they all have them in their homes.

 

[Integral]

What, so we should not have any laws because they don't make any difference? Come on!

I'm saying that spur of the moment things like this would not happen if every household did not own a gun.


And you're supporting the fact that Americans should be allowed to own guns? Wow.

first all let it be known that I do not own a gun.

I would NOT support such an impossible law as a total ban on guns. It is ludicrous to even think about it. In fact I am not in favor of gun control in general, we do not need more laws, the US is already throwing more people in jail then we have jails.


Clearly Cristo you are not American and simply do not understand the basic premise of the US. There is this hard to gain, easy to lose thing called freedom. The US has demonstrated that given the freedom to legislate you can legislate away freedom.