Originally Posted by thasac

I don't want to go shitting on this thread with my thoughts on gun laws, however, I have read the 2nd amendment multiple times over. The problem with the 2nd amendment (and the constitution in general) is when individuals do not treat it as the living document it was intended to be. Militia meant exactly what it meant - a militia, not individuals; a group of individuals bond by the common cause of protecting a young nation. Our 'threats' have obviously changed since the writing of the constitution, however, the 2nd amendment does not reflect the realities of our modern threats or the fact that we now have a heavily funded military with an international presence. Need we be reminded of some of ratifications which have occurred since the writing?

Again, I'm not saying individuals should not have the right to own a gun. I do, however, believe that some states in this union need to reevaluate how lax and undefined their gun laws are.

My opinions on gun laws aside, I completely agree with your opinions concerning the incident - the guy is (hopefully) going to get the book thrown at him.

-Zach

Originally Posted by chicksdigmiatas

Yes taking away guns from law abiding citizens will stop criminals from using and illegally acquiring them. It is a human right to defend yourself. I am glad you are fine with falling on the floor and curling up in a ball if someone tries to hurt/rob/kidnap you or your loved ones. If you do not like our freedoms, and want everything handed to you, perhaps you should move to a country that lacks the freedoms and has whatever other benefits that you want. In UK, you can't own a hand gun... I think you can have a shotgun, but if someone breaks into your place of residence with intentions unknown, and you shoot them, it is still on you. When ever I go somewhere borderline shitty, I have a .45 on my waist, and I have taken krav maga and some other forms of martial arts to besure I can take care of my wife and myself should I need to. I personally would never break into a persons house, car, or anything else criminal and malicious toward them, because I know that my life is in their hands. I don't think unstable people should have weapons that can kill someone. There are some people that just straight up shouldn't own weapons. But those people have means of getting them anyways. So removing firearms from the population would accomplish nothing but encouraging criminal activity.

Edit: you need an AK because the max effective range of a pistol is about 50 yards. Shotgun even shorter. I used to live on quite a large patch of property. If a threat exists that needs eliminated (IE someone shooting at your house or a dog or wolf attacking your livestock) what do you get him with? I would pull out my ar-10 and put him in the dirt. I am alive, and the crazy shooting at me from a range is dead.

Edit 2: I really want one of these:

Originally Posted by chicksdigmiatas

Yes taking away guns from law abiding citizens will stop criminals from using and illegally acquiring them. It is a human right to defend yourself. I am glad you are fine with falling on the floor and curling up in a ball if someone tries to hurt/rob/kidnap you or your loved ones.

Originally Posted by thasac

If you look at crime statistics there's two major themes (and yes, I understand there are inherent biases against gun owners).

1. The majority of burgalers (and by majority I'm speaking to the 95+ percentage) are interested in self preservation - this means both personal health and chance of criminal arrest/jail time. As a result, the chance of physical threat is low because they will likely do the following:

-Break in during working hours or a known vacancy (funerals, vacations, etc.) meaning you WON'T be home

-Will not carry a weapon because if caught it increases their jail time ten fold

In fact, owning a gun (especially hand guns and especially in urban environments) can greatly increase the chance of a break in because the street value is so high (hence why so many avid gun owners suggest NOT putting an NRA sticker on your vehicle).

2. The majority of deaths caused by gun violence is crime related, gang on gang, drug deal gone bad or the classic, some guy sleeps with hood rat girlfriend (I was graced with being a witness to one of these) - typical ghetto bullshit. If you don't have an affinity for drugs or living in the ghetto and steer clear of it then statistically your chance of being shot plummets.

The idea that some scumbag is going to break into your house with the intentions of stealing a Rolex and then suddenly decide to turn into a knife wielding maniac with a thirst for blood is a statistical anomaly (not an impossibility, but very unlikely). The health of yourself and your family is safer by just forfeiting your goods.

Again, I don't mind someone owning a weapon for their protection, sport or hunting (my g-ma has a clipped semi-auto and I still love her), however, this country needs better regulation and lynch those who prove irresponsible (as an individual or dealer) and those carrying un-reg'd weapons (life?).

-Zach

Originally Posted by hustler

I should also note that you've failed to acknowledge the well-being of my cat who will be at home while this kinder, gentler hoodlum robs me.

Originally Posted by hustler

People fear of a dog, or owners with a bad record of taking care of their pets does not mean the dog I played with yesterday should be snuffed-out.

Originally Posted by Braineack

Pitbull:




vs.



Burglar:

Originally Posted by samnavy

This is the case people are making for "he overreacted" and it is nowhere close to the point.

There is no way you will ever convince the American public that pit-bulls aren't dangerous... EVER.

As a pitbull owner, you're accepting of the fact that nobody will ever apply logic or reason during an encounter with your dog. You might hope that they will, but mostly they will simply be afraid and they will react in whatever manner they feel is appopriate. Some people will call the police. Some people who live in Texas and own AK-47's will come outside, hunt your dogs down and kill them. You might feel that the shooter overreacted but it really doesn't matter. The dogs are dead and they are dead because the owner chose that breed over another. I find it unlikely that the shooter would have come outside his house to kill 3 Pekinese or 3 Labs or 3 Dalmations.

If the man had come outside and killed 3 Basset Hounds with a .22 under the exact same circumstances, the entire country would be in a damned frenzy and out for the shooters' blood. But instead we have pit's, and most people can identify with the scared father and even if they think he overreacted, could care less about 3 dead pit's. They feel for the kids who lost their dogs, but not for the loss of the dogs because they were obviously vicious killers and you will never convince them othewise. Again, there is little logic and reason to put to this, it's simply the specific emotional response to any situation involving a pit.

All dogs can be dangerous and viscious, but there are dozens of other breeds that by their nature are large, loving, cuddly, nurturing, great around kids, do not scare the living **** out of people, do not inspire deep instinctual fear, do not provoke extreme emotional responses, and don't get shot when they go sniffing around your neighbors kids. This is not rocket surgery. Making a decision to purchase/inherit/rescue a pit carries with it a stigma that you will never shake and non-pit owners will always assume things about you personally and attach a stereotype. Why in the world would you ever own one of these dogs?

Originally Posted by thasac

So your wife knows how to discharge a fireman?

-Zach

Originally Posted by ScottFW

Have you even read the 2nd amendment? Even a self-described liberal can't ignore the fact that it contains the word "militia." Even by a narrow interpretation it says that "the people" (not "the government" or "the state" or "the army") are supposed to be equipped to form a militia to help provide for the security of a free state. You're not going to provide much security to the free state if you're not equipped with stuff designed specifically for killing, weapons designed for military use. I would think that given the history of our country that people in Massachusetts of all places would understand that.


The rest of us are thankful that the Constitution and the Supreme Court say you're wrong.


The guy who shot those dogs is probably in serious trouble. He was charged as a criminal and he's going to wind up in court having to explain why he shot 3 dogs who weren't on his property with no evidence that his kids were ever attacked (they were scared, not attacked). There are circumstances where it's perfectly justifiable to shoot a dog, and under those circumstances where immediate action is required I wouldn't care if he used a little 10/22, a shotgun, AK or whatever. But the fact that he took a stroll down the street with his AK and then fired 3 (or more) rounds in the middle of a suburban neighborhood adds to the totality of the situation here. The guy has to be a ******* nutjob. If your kids are fine, a normal person calls the police and lets the animal catcher deal with loose dogs.

Originally Posted by jacob300zx

thasac, you are a moron and the reason this country is getting lame by the minute. I'd like to hear your thoughts on the size of our Government and how our money is spent. I then want you to remember that 50% of all guns owned by private citizens are in Texas, never ever come here.

Originally Posted by thasac

This country needs some Mexican/UK style gun laws (sans the obvious corruption).

-Zach

Originally Posted by thasac

1. The majority of burgalers It is spelled "burglars"
(and by majority I'm speaking to the 95+ percentage) 95+% of all statistics are made up on the spot
are interested in self preservation - this means both personal health and chance of criminal arrest/jail time. As a result, the chance of physical threat is low because they will likely do the following:
Interviews with career burglars have shown over and over that their biggest deterrent is the fear of an armed homeowner.

-Break in during working hours or a known vacancy (funerals, vacations, etc.) meaning you WON'T be home
Does not apply to strong-arm robbery, home invasion, carjacking, armed robbery, rape, etc. In the case of the UK it doesn't matter if they think anyone is at home because they know all homeowners are unarmed. Home invasions and homeowner brutalizations are through the roof over there.

-Will not carry a weapon because if caught it increases their jail time ten fold
Again, I'm not just concerned about property crimes. Bad guys carry guns often. If you assume otherwise, you've never been exposed to reality. I sincerely hope you never do because I would never wish that on you.

In fact, owning a gun (especially hand guns and especially in urban environments) can greatly increase the chance of a break in because the street value is so high (hence why so many avid gun owners suggest NOT putting an NRA sticker on your vehicle).
Not advertising that you have a gun is the first rule of carrying a gun. Advertising you have many guns is asking for unwanted attention from the dregs.

2. The majority of deaths caused by gun violence is crime related, gang on gang, drug deal gone bad or the classic, some guy sleeps with hood rat girlfriend (I was graced with being a witness to one of these) - typical ghetto bullshit. If you don't have an affinity for drugs or living in the ghetto and steer clear of it then statistically your chance of being shot plummets.
Actually almost ALL deaths caused by gun violence are crime related. Either a criminal doing the shooting or a criminal being shot. I prefer the second of the two when given a choice.

The idea that some scumbag is going to break into your house with the intentions of stealing a Rolex and then suddenly decide to turn into a knife wielding maniac with a thirst for blood is a statistical anomaly (not an impossibility, but very unlikely). The health of yourself and your family is safer by just forfeiting your goods.
Then give me your turbo. Forfeit the goods, bitch.

Again, I don't mind someone owning a weapon for their protection, sport or hunting This certainly doesn't seem to be the case from your statements above

(my g-ma has a clipped semi-auto and I still love her),Sounds like someone in the family has the benefit of wisdom on her side

however, this country needs better regulation Not the problem. Criminals don't typically use legally acquired weapons. Regulations only prevent the honest from being able to defend themselves

and lynch Lynching is illegal and immoral. We are a nation of laws.

those who prove irresponsible (as an individual or dealer)There are plenty of laws that do just that already. The problem seems to be lackluster liberal judges and a justice system that releases violent criminals too readily

and those carrying un-reg'd weapons (life?).It is not required in free states to have guns registered. Maybe one day you will visit a free country and see the difference. Try somewhere south or west of Virginia...

-Zach

Originally Posted by spoolin2bars

why in the world would anyone ever adopt a black kid? they get same bum rap as these dogs. it takes a strong person to look through all that bs and give their heart to something so villified. should we just put the breed down? someone tried to do that before too, except it was jews that he tried eradicate. you are right about the other part though. most people will react with irrational fear due to their ignorance, helped in part to the sensational headlines (fear mongering) that the media uses when there is a pit attack. but not when a poodle or a dalamtion or a chow mames (< spell right?) somebody or worse.

Originally Posted by mgeoffriau

Just try and tell me you aren't jealous: