Our thoughts and prayers...

[TheLightWithin]

A good man would not shoot another without reason (unless it is possibly accidental). So the premise is faulty. A man shot for reason is by definition a bad man, and shooting a bad man with a good reason is good, or at least forgivable. A bad man pretending to be a good man is still a bad man, a good man would not have murderous intent.

I love the idea and the black and white thinking, but unfortunately not always so clear cut.
People who think they are very, very good can be provoked into vigilantism and shoot the wrong guy.
Could be they shot someone who had a bad reputation, but is innocent of the crime suspected.
I think that was the point of the riddle, or at least a plausible scenario for it.

 

[TheLightWithin]

So if a person is murdering your wife in front of you, raping your child in front of you, your answer is to stand by and had the matter over to the authorities and hope they catch the criminal and hope the matter goes before a truthseeking court? When you could have stepped forward and at least made a sincere attempt, even at the cost of your own life to defend those you love and care for and nurture?

I think the problem is that so darn rarely is it that perps are caught right in the act.

 

[TheLightWithin]

The doc you really don't want is the one that believes in reincarnation...

Why not? If he fears bad karma or revenge, would that not motivate him to do it right?

 

[juantoo3]

I love the idea and the black and white thinking, but unfortunately not always so clear cut.
People who think they are very, very good can be provoked into vigilantism and shoot the wrong guy.
Could be they shot someone who had a bad reputation, but is innocent of the crime suspected.
I think that was the point of the riddle, or at least a plausible scenario for it.

With the crime taking place right in front of you, the perp just has a "bad reputation" and is misunderstood???


Wow.

 

[juantoo3]

Why not? If he fears bad karma or revenge, would that not motivate him to do it right?

Or more likely just say "oops. Well, maybe next life things will be better for you..."

 

[juantoo3]

libbies libbies libbies is a label label label

And if the label fits....

 

[juantoo3]

IMO the simple fact is the US mass shootings and school shootings would not happen without the public availability of semi-automatic guns. Very few criminal home invasions, street crimes and store robberies etc, involve semi-automatic rifles. The vast majority involve only handguns

So truck bombs and sweater bombs and machete rampages and barrelling cars through barricades into parades and pressure cooker bombs at the finish line of a marathon are all so much more preferable? While disarming law abiding citizens?

There is a degree of cultural miscommunication...English and Canadian friends, as part of the British Commonwealth, fall under English Law and are accustomed to the English view of the matter.

Americans threw off English hegemony. We discovered it was foolish to believe the crown would "always" have our best interests, and "never" take advantage of the situation...which at the time was in fact not occurring. I want to believe the crown has since learned that lesson.

The men who crafted our Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, and the Articles of Confederation, and the Declaration of Independence, were not simple rabble rousers or malcontents. They were well versed in International leadership and authority.

The same people in this country today advocating for taking away the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights are the same people who also shout down Freedom of Speech, and decry Freedom of Religion. They don't even hide the fact. If you believe in G!d, you don't deserve to speak and you have no right to defend yourself against us. The First and Second Amendments are first and second for a REASON.

If you disagree, as an American, with the Second Amendment, you are not forced to maintain a firearm, that is your choice to surrender to harm when it comes. But for law abiding citizens to have the RIGHT to defend themselves from harm when it comes is an inherent duty. What parent would not defend their child if the situation warranted??? Only an unfit parent not worthy to shepherd a child would not defend that child.

Which then leads to why children have also become targets, before and after birth.

 

[RJM]

So truck bombs and sweater bombs and machete rampages and barrelling cars through barricades into parades and pressure cooker bombs at the finish line of a marathon are all so much more preferable?

I would call that terrorism, not ordinary crime? Semi-automatic weapons in the hands of civilian citizens have never had much an effect of averting terrorism.

As they say: It's people that kill, not guns. But most mass shootings and school shootings would never happen without civilian semi-automatic weapons.

I am specifically talking about semi-automatic military type rifles in the hands of civilians

 

[juantoo3]

But most mass shootings and school shootings would never happen without civilian semi-automatic weapons.

I am specifically talking about semi-automatic military type rifles in the hands of civilians

That is the hearsay and propaganda.

There are instances. And there are also instances *of mass shootings* that were not carried out with / by assault rifles.

Those creating the ballyhoo seldom even properly describe the weapon...as was done here in this quote.

Military weapons are full automatic, squeeze and fire until you stop squeezing the trigger. "Semi" automatic means you have to pull the trigger once for each shot - as fast as you can pull the trigger, but you must pull the trigger to fire the bullet. All people hear or read is "automatic," and propagandists are happy to play to that ignorance by calling semi-autos "military style" weapons. This conflation is deliberate, and leading to the registration and confiscation of ALL firearms of all types in open defiance of the Second Amendment.

That is UN-American. I expect it from those comfortable living with restrictions in other countries, but to hear the deliberate obfuscation in an attempt to disarm a lawful population (while simultaneously letting serious offenders out of jail, no bond or surety, and slap on the hand sentences - EVEN FOR GUN CRIMES), is the height of political hypocrisy.

 

[RJM]

And there are also instances *of mass shootings* that were not carried out with / by assault rifles.

I'm saying the vast majority of mass shootings and school shootings are carried out with assault type rifles -- whatever you want to call them -- and not with pistols and handguns or shotguns. And that the vast majority of 'non-terrorist' gun crime against civilians involves handguns, not assault weapons -- whatever you want to call them. Of course there are exceptions, and internecine gang warfare between drug cartels and so on, does not involve innocent citizens, except perhaps in crossfire situations.

 

[RJM]

Anyway, I shouldn't get myself involved. However it's obvious to most people that mass shootings and school shootings in America would be greatly reduced if assault type guns were not so easily available, whatever the rhetoric, imo

 

[juantoo3]

Anyway, I shouldn't get myself involved. However it's obvious to most people that mass shootings and school shootings in America would be greatly reduced if assault type guns were not so easily available, whatever the rhetoric, imo

And neutral Switzerland has shown exactly the opposite... That's not opinion, that is demonstrated fact.

 

[RJM]

And neutral Switzerland has shown exactly the opposite... That's not opinion, that is demonstrated fact.

But that is a highly trained military who after serving compulsory four years in the army, are required to keep their army issue rifles at home, in order to defend their country at a moment's notice against outside invasion, following WW2. A Swiss soldier is trained and disciplined in the use of his rifle. It's not comparable to unregistered US civilian access to assault weapons, imo

However, the US situation is clearly not going to be sorted out anytime soon, and in the meantime the killing of schoolchildren and other innocent people by kooks with constitutional right to carry assault rifles will just go on.

 

[juantoo3]

I'm saying the vast majority of mass shootings and school shootings are carried out with assault type rifles -- whatever you want to call them -- and not with pistols and handguns or shotguns. And that the vast majority of 'non-terrorist' gun crime against civilians involves handguns, not assault weapons -- whatever you want to call them. Of course there are exceptions, and internecine gang warfare between drug cartels and so on, does not involve innocent citizens, except perhaps in crossfire situations.

So you condone "internecine gang warfare between drug cartels and so on"? That's OK, because they don't use longarms?

So the internecine gang warfare across the Southern US, particularly the SouthWest from Texas to California, is acceptable as long as it is done with pistols?

That's what I'm reading.

??? People are shot dead, innocent people are shot dead, regardless of the tactics of the weapon. Pistols, and slightly lesser extent shotguns, are close quarters weapons, used when you are looking your target in the eye.

Longarms are for distance...unless modified to be full auto, then the tactics changes again, excellent for mid range on the battlefield. Longarms are also used for sniping - from a distance.

The number of civilian people dead from being *aimed at* by longarms is MUCH smaller percentage...in other words, close quarters weapons by their nature are more deadly. But those are OK, they aren't the scary sounding but factually defensive tactical weapon used by law abiding citizens who have that right by their nation's founding charter. Is that what I am to understand?

Guns are bad, I agree. Not having any better means of defense against a gun requires a gun, in any practical sense.

The proverbial "Nobody" is using their long standing lawful firearm to commit crimes. Many go hunting, I know you are an animal lover, but it is also a fact of life. Hunting, done responsibly, is a generational practice. Humans have hunted to survive, where the term hunter-gatherer comes from.

The logic is flawed. Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire. Not advocating, not provoking, I wish in no way to see anything start, As much as possible without surrender be on good terms with all men.

 

[RJM]

So you condone "internecine gang warfare between drug cartels and so on"? That's OK, because they don't use longarms?

So the internecine gang warfare across the Southern US, particularly the SouthWest from Texas to California, is acceptable as long as it is done with pistols?

That's what I'm reading.

??? People are shot dead, innocent people are shot dead, regardless of the tactics of the weapon. Pistols, and slightly lesser extent shotguns, are close quarters weapons, used when you are looking your target in the eye.

Longarms are for distance...unless modified to be full auto, then the tactics changes again, excellent for mid range on the battlefield.

From number of people dead from being *aimed at* by longarms is MUCH smaller percentage...in other words, close quarters weapons by their nature are more deadly. But those are OK, they aren't the scary sounding but factually defensive tactical weapon used by law abiding citizens who have that right by their nation's founding charter. Is that what I am to understand?

Guns are bad, I agree. Not having any better means of defense against a gun requires a gun, in any practical sense.

The proverbial "Nobody" is using is using their long standing lawful to commit crimes. Many go hunting, I know you are an animal lover, but it is also a fact of life. Hunting, done responsibly, is a generational practice. Humans have hunted to survive, where the term hunter-gatherer comes from.

The logic is flawed. Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire. Not advocating, not provoking, I wish in no way to see anything start, As much as possible without surrender be on good terms with all men.

No. I'm basically saying none of the above.

Drug gang wars may be fought with assault weapons, but do not involve innocent people except for crossfire situations. It is a situation for trained police and security agencies with justified access to assault type weapons, and where civilians seldom intervene.

Ethical hunters use bolt action rifles and some may even reject telescopic sights, or hunt with bows.

None of these situations relate to lunatics shooting up schools and malls with assault weapons. If assault weapons were restricted there would be far fewer of these shooting using pistols and handguns, imo

 

[juantoo3]

No. I'm basically saying none of the above.

Drug gang wars may be fought with assault weapons, but do not involve innocent people except for crossfire situations.

But those crossfire situations as you call them are a daily occurrence in places like Compton, or Watts, or most any of the greater LA metro, and that was when I was a kid. We have, here, today, I receive the Orlando (you know, IzdayUrldway) news and just in the past couple of weeks were two different episodes that claimed the life of an elementary school age child. And longarms were not involved. How does taking my hunting rifle keep these young children from being shot at close range as unintended consequences of "internecine warfare?" When you're staring at the barrel of a gun, doesn't really matter what kind of warfare you want to call it...you don't want to be there!

Ethical hunters use bolt action rifles and some may even reject telescopic sights, or hunt with bows.

None of these situations relate to lunatics shooting up schools and malls with assault weapons. If assault weapons were restricted there would be far fewer of these shooting using pistols and handguns, imo

Your choice.

Just curious, did any of your family put on a uniform in either World War? It's a personal question and you don't have to answer.

 

[RJM]

How does taking my hunting rifle keep these young children from being shot at close range as unintended consequences of "internecine warfare?"

There's no problem with your bolt action hunting rifle

Just curious, did any of your family put on a uniform in either World War? It's a personal question and you don't have to answer.

Both my grandfathers and my father and uncles wore the British uniform in WW2. My eldest uncle was a battle of Britain squadron leader killed on the last day of WW2. I can post a picture of his official Air force grave, if you like. I've also worn a uniform in a vicious African bush war, and I grew up on a farm with rifles, shotguns and handguns from a young age

 

[juantoo3]

I love the idea and the black and white thinking, but unfortunately not always so clear cut.
People who think they are very, very good can be provoked into vigilantism and shoot the wrong guy.
Could be they shot someone who had a bad reputation, but is innocent of the crime suspected.
I think that was the point of the riddle, or at least a plausible scenario for it.

A sleeping vigilante? Instead of sleep walking he was in a sleep posse? How is it possible to shoot with the intent of a vigilante "the wrong guy" while sleeping?

The logic is flawed.

 

[juantoo3]

Both my grandfathers and my father and uncles wore the British uniform in WW2. My eldest uncle was a battle of Britain squadron leader killed on the last day of WW2. I can post a picture of his official Air force grave, if you like. I've also worn a uniform in a vicious African bush war, and I grew up on a farm with rifles, shotguns and handguns from a young age

Very good! Honorable men, and thank you for your service to your nation as well.

My Great Grandfather earned multiple French medals in WWI, singlehandedly took out a German machine gun nest, spun the gun around and fired until it was out of ammunition. I have a copy of the newspaper interview when he came home I can share. My grandfather was a civilian warrant officer over a paint shop at an Airbase outside of Detroit MI...he was 4F during the war, bad legs, but spent the time all those years past the war on that airbase, and retired in the late 1960s. I did a hitch in the Navy.

So you already understand the tactical uses of the weapons as I described, and you understand the truth I wrote. No?

You are advocating the taking away of my defensive arm, but allowing the criminal armies to legally have sidearms...and the justification is because a handful of psychologically unstable chicken sh!ts used a long arm to make the evening news?

I'm sorry but I fail to understand the principled logic. The tactical logic I understand very well, get your enemy to lay down their arms without firing a shot. Coming from a military man that only confuses me more.

I've said too much.

 

[RJM]

You are advocating the taking away of my defensive arm, but allowing the criminal armies to legally have sidearms...and the justification is because a handful of psychologically unstable chicken sh!ts used a long arm to make the evening news?

Ah no. I'm suggesting the regulation of assault weapons to civilians in the US, to help bring down school and other mass shootings. That's all. It's very logical to me ...