Shootings

RyanShort1 · **Posted:** Mon Dec 10, 2007 6:56 pm

Muddy,

I don't know how to read your response to my previous post, but I assume you're not totally disagreeing. I'll admit that I don't totally know the demographics up there, but in general, that was what I would've suspected. For sure, that's how the folks up there I know would likely react.
Like I said before, I don't ever want to use a weapon on another human being, unless their committing a crime. On the other hand, even in a total police state - the police are not God and are not Omnipresent - nor do I want them to be. I would prefer to be responsible for my own, and my family's defense, than rely on a policeman 2-5 miles away to protect me - Especially out in the country or in a neighborhood like mine.
Personally, I've played a few video games in my life - mostly flight simulators - and I think that a FEW of them might have a place - but I will personally will NEVER play a first-person shooter outside of a good realistic combat flight simulator - and that's extremely rare. I've seen what happens to an animal when it's hit by a round, and I also know what happens to human beings, and I don't want to be responsible for it, unless it's in defense of God's law and protecting human life or defending against evil perversion.

Ryan

Broken-Wrench · **Joined:** Sun Oct 24, 2004 12:37 pm **Posts:** 1197

[quote="muddyboots"]it just occured to me that BW may be right in a sense. His argument that video games are helping encourage the rate of shootings may be true.

What does the military do to increase hand eye coordination, and reduce inhibitions to shoot someone? They put your ass on the range and have you fire a couple thousand rounds at a round target. Then you graduate to profiles. The you graduate to popup profiles. By the time you're done, you don't think about pulling the trigger, you just do it. Video games maye well introduce that repetative syndrome in kids (especially sensitive to such indoctrination) and allowing them to block out he consequences of their actions more easily. I don't think video games really reduce their morals, but you have to look at society and how rough we've become, and if holywood and video games dont have somethign to do with it.

Not that I would agree with BW under any but the most dire circumstances, mind

[/quote]

my nephew makes comparisons between something that happened in a game and real life. Sometimes i think he is cofused what is real. There is no way i would let him around a real gun..he constantly is playing those games and even has a portable unit.

muddyboots · **Posted:** Mon Dec 10, 2007 7:12 pm

Ryan, I can see what you're saying. I tended to hang around with a lower browed crowd back then, not the salt of the earth type folks. And Luby's was more likely to be frequented by an older, more staid crowd. It was a pretty quiet place to eat, which is why we went there.
So yeah, I'll back up on my surety a bit and admit I could be wrong. I have no problem with a man carrying concealed. If he is trained and knows what he is about. But I still don't think allowing kids to carry on campus is a winning situation. I have to live and work around them all day, and can only think of a couple of the hundreds I know who I would let look at my gun, much less carry one.

Concealed carry laws are just fine for people who know what they are doing. But could you imagine a law like that in Hollywood? *cringes* College campuses should NOT allow weapons to be carried, IMHO. Elsewhere? I could be sold. As I said, I am licenced here, which ain't easy. And I own a fairly large collection of weapons that most folks can't. Do I use them? No. Do I believe I need them? Yes. I don't own them as collectors items. I own them because I don't trust other human beings to always act responsibly and honorably. I may need them one day. Simple as that

You're right. Shooting someone is not somethig yo want to go through. Last time I did it was ten years ago and I still dream about it often. It stays with you when everything else fades. But don't you let that inhibit you. When it's you or him, make it him and let the worms sort it out.

RyanShort1 · **Posted:** Mon Dec 10, 2007 8:39 pm

Muddy,

My biggest beef about the whole college campus this is this: I understand the fears, and the concerns, but with proper training, and the fairly strict requirements to get a CCL, (maybe add some higher fees for younger ages) I still think that citizens who are old enough to vote, should be old enough to exercise their Constitutional right. I've got a large number of friends who I consider responsible, who do not play video games, and who I would completely trust with MY weapon. I don't think it's fair to them to say that they cannot take steps to protect themselves if they feel the need to. Keeping folks like them from carrying certainly hasn't stopped shooters like at VT or elsewhere, and there's no real deterrent in a few security guards (yeah - they look fierce, too) at the college campuses I've been to. Even with a 1000 to 1 shot that a bad guy might run into a CCL student, I think the bad guys would think twice.

Ryan

CAPFlyer · **Posted:** Mon Dec 10, 2007 8:50 pm

MB, I think you're forgetting that guns were already banned from the VT campus. It sure didn't stop the perp from having multiple handguns in his dorm room on campus.

Washington, D.C., has been "gun free" since the 1970s. Firearm-involved violence has increased exponentially since then, easily outpacing the growth rate of the district.

In Arizona, when the "open carry" law was enacted, there was a marked decrease (something like 5%) in the number of violent crimes commited. There is a famous case where 2 armed men entered a restaraunt and were faced with not only the 10+ police whom were in there, but also the patrons whom were also armed. No shots were fired, but both men were arrested and convicted in several other robberies.

I'm sorry, but handgun and gun laws in general only prevent one thing - the law abiding citizen from protecting themselves and their loved ones. I understand laws regulating the ability to own and fire heavy weapons and automatic weapons, but the assault weapons ban didn't stop the criminals from getting AK's by the thousands and out-gunning the police for several years. The handgun ban in D.C. didn't stop the gangs from getting handguns from outside the district and bringing them in to shoot each other and innocent civilians.

If it was truly possible to enforce the laws, it would make sense, but there are not and will never be enough police to do so and thus the citizen must be empowered to defend themselves instead of hampered.

BTW, when I went through my CCL class there was something in the book that took many by surprise. I don't remember the case, but it was established in a supreme court case that the cops don't have ANY responsibility to protect you as an individual. They only have the responsibility to protect the community they serve as a whole. As such, protecting yourself is YOUR job, not theirs.

Jase · **Posted:** Mon Dec 17, 2007 12:19 am

CapFlyer: The case you are looking for is Warren vs District of Columbia; or DeShaney vs Winnebago Cty Dept Social Services. DeShaney went all the way to the US Supreme Court, who held that the Constitution imposed no duty on the police to protect individual people.

The ONLY duty the police have is **to INVESTIGATE crimes that have ALREADY occurred, and attempt to bring those responsible to justice**.

Read this site: http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasle ... ction.html

Everyone should also read the book "Dial 911 and Die" by Richard Stevens. Some astounding stuff in it, every bit of it is factual and provable.

CAPFlyer · **Posted:** Mon Dec 17, 2007 4:28 pm

Thank you Jase.

I know a lot of people are looking closely at the Supreme Court here early next year when the constitutionality on the total handgun ban within the District is argued before them. It will be interesting to see if they uphold it as the right of the District to impose such a ban or if it is in violation of the 2nd Amendment. Personally I think the determination will lie in whether the belief is held that the District is governed under the US Constitution (as the law and control of the District is set forth within the Constitution) or under some other law/constitution/whatever as the District lawyers, city council, and mayor have attempted to argue since enacting the ban.

Jack Frost · **Posted:** Fri Dec 28, 2007 10:54 pm

I have been following this very interesting thread and have a question.

Quote "The ONLY duty the police have is **to INVESTIGATE crimes that have ALREADY occurred, and attempt to bring those responsible to justice**. "

Does this mean that if I am in a public place and another person points a weapon at me in a threatening manner and a policeman observes this he is under no obligation to interfere to protect me until the gunner shoots me. Then his obligation is to arrest the gunner since shooting innocent people is against the law but pointing a gun at someone isn't?

I don't think so!

CAPFlyer · **Posted:** Sat Dec 29, 2007 12:38 am

If an officer witnesses a FELONY in progress, he (or she) is obligated to effect an arrest and initiate an investigation.

In the case you cite, the argument could be made that the person in question had initiated a crime (intimidation with a deadly weapon) and the officer was then effecting an investigation and apprehension. As well, there was a clear threat to public safety, thus he was acting under his duty to "Protect". While he is not absolutely responsible for protecting the person threatened by the person with the gun, he is responsible for protecting the public, which includes the victim, from the person with the gun.

That's where the very fine, but legal, definition comes into play. Unless the officer sees the crime in progress, he has no responsibility to act upon a perception of a crime about to happen or prevent a crime that has not occurred.

Jack Frost · **Posted:** Sat Dec 29, 2007 12:22 pm

CAPFlyer, thanks for the explanation. As I understand it, 'Duty to Protect' doesn't mean to personally protect a person but to publicly protect everyone. It's a fine line, especially if I'm packing heat too. That could get really confusing.

Jack F

Warbird Information Exchange

Shootings

Who is online