It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Neighbors shocked after SC trick-or-treater shot

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Oreyeon

How much do you want to bet that Obama, if elected uses this case as a justification to introduce a repeal attempt of the 2nd Amendment?


Any amount you care to name


I would say the chances are less than zero.

First, the man is not stupid, second, he's not remotely the rabid anti-gunner the frothing right likes to pretend.

He's on the record supporting the SCOTUS Heller decision reaffirming that the Second guarantees an individual right to own firearms, all BS aside.

...

As for the incident in question, this guy was clearly a moron who probably shouldn't be operating a tricycle, let alone a rifle, and as a convicted felon I believe it was already illegal for him to own firearms.




posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Phatcat

We all get a little heated from time to time, and I have to admit the same thought had already crossed my mind as well. A child is dead tonight, and a family is going through torture I cannot imagine and would dare not even try. I actually came across this story before this thread started, but I didn't see where a thread on it would accomplish anything. Once Scram started it, however, I felt it important to monitor it for any sign of gun control frenzy. While I saw none until your post, I also saw little remorse for the poor victim of something as senseless and criminal as this incident.


I'm sure there are a lot of responsible gun owners. I believe you are one of them, based on what I have read from you so far. I'm sure your children will not be able to get at your weapons easily.

Actually, both kids know where the loaded guns are. I have taught both of them the three rules of firearm safety form the time they could understand:
  • Always assume every gun is loaded,
  • Never point a gun at anything you don't want to kill,
  • Only kill for food or self-protection.


They are trustworthy enough to know where the guns are. They have the mental maturity to know that guns are inherently dangerous, so they also know never to touch them. I believe that should something happen where i was unable to respond, they would ignore that order in order to protect themselves. That disobedience would be fine with me (and the possibility of such a circumstance does exist, see below). Barring such a circumstance, I have absolutely no concern over their knowledge, for I know their spirit. Just as importantly, they know mine.


(Incidentally, they also know where the chainsaw is, where the Saws-All is, where the welder is... my 14 y/o son can weld better than I can
)

I also realize that I am extremely unusual in this respect, and I do not encourage anyone to place a weapon where childish antics might endanger someone.


But doesn't your lack of faith in humanity extend to the mass of people who own guns and just do not fit the profile that would qualify them for owning a gun in a responsible manner?

Ah, you do indeed have a point. And that is why you now have that little green bar over your avatar that says "one of your friends".

Maybe it's fervent hope that somehow mankind will someday prove me wrong in that lack of faith... maybe it's survival instinct that lets me know that there are forces out there I cannot (and more importantly my kids cannot) face down without the aid of a firearm. We do have wild animals here where I am, up to and including mountain lions and black bears. I am pretty good in a hand-to-hand battle, and fair with a knife, but I am no match for an angry bear or starving cougar.

So rather than give in to cries for the banning of an item I could build from scratch, I prefer to focus on education of the dangers inherent with any machine designed to take life.

I hope that makes sense...

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 05:30 AM
link   
I have to admit, where I live, we do not have lions or bears.

And I would also feel a lot better if I knew my offspring would be able to defend themselves incase one of those 4-legged predators found a way inside my home when I'm not there.

I do believe people should be free to buy any gun they want, if they are responsible with them. Which includes either making a gun inaccessible to anyone else or, as you have chosen, to educate your children properly on the dangers of said weapon.

If I would have grown up in your neck of the woods, I propably would have a firearm as well, to protect myself and my family from said bears and lions. I'm not a small guy but a raging bear is somewhat out of my capability to melee as well!


Not everybody is capable of handling it responsible though, least of all city-slickers who did not grow up around guns and suddenly find themselves owning a hand cannon. The sense of power.. unrestrained by oldfashioned common sense. The least bit they get threathened, the first option on their mind is to 'blow 'em away' as happened in this case of trick or treating.

Having the right to do something does not automatically qualify it as a good idea to excercise said right, that's all I'm saying. Think twice before making that purchase, which could very well change your life and those you love in a matter of seconds. Or end them if things really go bad.

I've also added you to my friends list, I don't think there is one post you made I did not enjoy reading, even if I wasn't 100% agreeing with the premise, it's good to see someone capable of that old-fashioned thing called 'thinking'



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Phatcat

Having the right to do something does not automatically qualify it as a good idea to excercise said right, that's all I'm saying. Think twice before making that purchase, which could very well change your life and those you love in a matter of seconds. Or end them if things really go bad.

Oh, how much I would love to see others say this!

I mean, I am surrounded by thousands of dollars worth of old-growth hardwoods. It is my right to clear-cut those trees out of my way and pocket the cash. I'll never do it. One patch of virgin forest will stand tall, as long as I breath. Now if someone wanted to make it illegal for me to clear-cut it, I would fight against that tooth and nail. I want my rights, even if I choose not to use them.

I think, ironically. a lot of the problems we see with firearms are caused by those who would take them away. People tend to rebel against what they see as injustice, and in many cases that rebellion leads to a furthering of the very thing that people are attempting to take away. Thus, the slickers you mentioned.

Oh, and the bear thing... I remember one summer day my daughter came home from visiting a neighbor. She was all excited about seeing a bear cub!
I think that was the most scared I have ever been, and I spent the next three months drilling into both kids' heads never, never, never, never, NEVER get around a bear cub! It is the most dangerous animal known to mankind, cause Momma is always close around and takes a very dim view of playmates for her offspring...

TheRedneck


[edit on 3-11-2008 by TheRedneck]



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


hmm, I believe it once was indeed human nature to rebel against injustice.

But these days, people are so desensitized with injustices huge and small that the only way they'll speak up about it is if said injustice affects them personally. Or maybe if it has become a hype on the mainstream media, after which the people can form a front and wipe out the injustice and feel good about themselves.

For example, years ago, here in Belgium, several girls got abducted and killed, two of those girls got found back alive, locked in a specially modified basement, both having been molested. The guy who had abducted them was sentenced to a jail term prior to the girls recovery, they spent a lot of time wondering if anyone would ever find them, not getting fed or anything. (the guy's name was Marc Dutroux if anyone cares to google it)

point is, after they recovered the girls a massive uproar stormed over the land. "Things would have to change and change now or there would be rebellion" .. a demonstration was organised which was attended by never before seen numbers of people. It was called the White March, over 300k attendees.

Was there a rebellion? nope.. the same politicians that created the mess that our law enforcement agencys found themselves in where oh so quick to recuperate exactly this well meant spontaneous expression of peacefull protest to form laws which all are usefull to form a police state.

If we had truly wanted change, we'd have stormed the parliament, dragged those traitors out by their whiskers and hung them from the nearest lightpoles.

But we didn't.. we had done 'our part', we could pat ourselves on the back, and we got served the illusion of change.

One more spicy detail: after Marc Dutroux was arrested, he managed to set the country in turmoil once again after he managed to escape while looking into his files at the prosecutor's office.. He managed to get the gun of one of the policemen guarding him and ran straight out, hijacked a car and allmost got out of the country. While the entire police apparatus was out in force to find him, he was eventually found by a 'park ranger'

The gun which he had managed to take had not even been loaded! It is against police protocol here to carry a loaded gun on duty. And still those braindead flatfoots allowed him to stoll out..

People are easy to lead, in my experience.. when you give them an illusion of Democracy, they'll lap up all the lies in order to maintain the illusion. No amount of guns will change that. just my 2 cents offcourse..

P.S.: I'm glad your daughter didn't have the misfortune of meeting momma bear.. nature can be heartwarming, especially the little ones, but much safer viewed on National Geographic then in real life I guess



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Phatcat

People are easy to lead, in my experience.. when you give them an illusion of Democracy, they'll lap up all the lies in order to maintain the illusion. No amount of guns will change that. just my 2 cents offcourse..

I think maybe you should allow for inflation... that opinion is worth a good deal more than 2 cents. People are indeed easy to lead.

The gun control issue has enough backers over here to be able to lead a lot of people to back the ability to have guns. That is why I speak out so adamantly about such a right, because if one side is allowed to speak unchallenged, the majority of the population will side with that louder voice. It's simple human nature. But I try to be careful to advocate education as well as right of ownership.

A gun in any hand is dangerous. It is meant to be. But if that hand is educated on how powerful and deadly the tool can be, it is more likely to handle it safely. The answer to violence is not to remove guns form the population, but to educate the population in the safe methods (and there are such) to use them for productive purposes.

To twist this offshoot back to the original topic, a felon (meaning someone who has already committed a serious crime) in possession of a firearm is not safe, and therefore the restriction on a true felon (I insert the term 'true' because some measure of attempting to felonize offenses that should not carry such consequences has been tried) is IMO reasonable. This incident points that out. But it would be silly and counterproductive to state that since a known felon committed a crime with a gun, everyone should share in his punishment.

That tactic may work in kindergarten (although I would debate that as well), but it has no place in a society of individuals.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 02:02 PM
link   
Nobody is born a felon though.. at one time, they must have been law abiding citizens, so they would have had every right to buy that gun. And a lot of those people will know how to handle a gun safely..

But then, they make a choice to break the law, and use that gun to enforce their desires upon society, be it through a hold-up, downright murder, a rape or whatever.

I'm not saying the world would be perfect without guns.

Funny though how in all these school shootings the perp never uses a knife. If they would, their bodycount would not be nearly as high, as people can run away when someone starts thinking he is the reïncarnation of Jason from Friday the 13th..



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Interestinggg
This is no case to say we should make firearms illegal.
That's like banning cars because people run people down.
A gun is just a machine like a car.
He could have easily opened the door and stabbed the kid to death.
Should we ban knives?
How will we cut up our food?
However some kind of psych testing for both drivers and gun owners would weed out the wacko's.


This is as retarded and fallacial argument as any ever posted on the internet.

The primary use of a car is for transport.
The primary use of a knife is to cut things up.
That both can be used as weapons is incidental.
The primary use of a firearm is to kill.
It has no other use.

The case for increased legislation of firearms is as much about reducing the availability of illicit (i.e stolen or otherwise misappropriated) firearms to criminals as it is to prevent the sale of them to persons that would fail any given intelligence or psychiatric test.

It is at the very least disingenuous, verging on the laughable, to suggest that killing someone with a firearm or knife are equable in terms of ease.

If this particular argument needs to be rehashed in any other forum, then flashcards may have to be made for the terminally stupid and offensively dogmatic persons here.



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by meihem
The case for increased legislation of firearms is as much about reducing the availability of illicit (i.e stolen or otherwise misappropriated) firearms to criminals as it is to prevent the sale of them to persons that would fail any given intelligence or psychiatric test.


First I need to point out that a gun is a tool, just as a car and a knife are tools. There are hundreds of thousands of gun owners in this world who use their guns for nothing more than hunting just as they could use a bow and arrows. But they choose to shoot at the animal they are hunting with bullets instead of arrows. Blame the user, not the tool.

As I said in the other thread about this same subject that was closed in favor of this one (since this one has been open longer than the other) tightening gun laws does nothing to the felons and mentally unstable people who obtain them illegally. It only affects those who follow the laws. Felons and the mentally unstable will always be able to obtain firearms illegally if they try hard enough through gun runners. Can't stop the gun runners because we don't know who they all are, and even if we did someone else will step in to start running them. An outright ban of guns will do nothing but leave law-abiding citizens as the only ones without guns. Outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.

Now back to the original topic. After quite a bit of thought, I still cannot fathom how anyone could possibly believe that someone knocking on the door is there to rob them... Especially on Halloween of all nights when it is common knowledge that children are running around knocking on doors trick-or-treating. It could have been anyone at the door knocking. It could have been his family, friends, the pizza delivery guy, or the church ladies who pass out church leaflets. Yet he chose to shoot first, an AK-47 of all things, instead of looking to see who was at the door first. And an innocent child paid the price for this moron's stupidity... No matter what he is ultimately convicted of it won't be enough IMO.



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by meihem

So, the primary use for a firearm is to shoot through the door and kill whoever may be there? Funny, I bought most of my guns for a different reason... how silly of me


Your premise is fallacious. It does not matter what an object is designed for nearly as much as it matters what an item is used for. My car may have been designed for transportation, but should I run someone down in a parking lot (as I have seen happen in my youth), the result is that the victim is no less dead that if they had been hit with a bullet between the eyes.

A set of keys may be used as a pretty effective weapon with proper training, ask any martial arts instructor. Would you prefer to be cut with a knife or a set of keys? Here's a hint: the keys hurt a lot more than a sharp knife.

Your post illustrates someone who is not familiar with guns. I am assuming (though probably futilely) that you have read the other posts in this thread. In one I gave a couple of examples of animals who share this mountain where I live, both of which are more than a match for any human. That's why I have guns. I also do not have police protection readily available should there ever be an attack by another human (who could easily be armed himself). That's why I have guns. There are snakes galore here, many of which are poisonous to humans and it is a 30-minute ordeal to get an ambulance this far out of town. Without treatment, a rattlesnake can kill an adult human in 15 minutes. That's why I have a gun.

I will also assume you live in a relatively populated area, complete with police protection, nearby emergency medical services, and no wild animals roaming free. If so, and if you so choose, do not buy a gun. I will never deny you the choice to not purchase a gun. Please do not deny me the choice to have one in my situation.

There's a great big world out there, and in it there are a lot of different people and situations. Do not assume everyone lives as you do.

TheRedneck




top topics



 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join