Guns bad...case closed

[JimC]

That's two and a half million American lives saved every year, thanks to guns. Just think about that.

Imagine how many lives could be saved if they all carried Bazookas?

Big Bazookas!

[Svartalf]

I am a militant partisan for equipping pedestrians with bazookas,
equalizes the problems with vehicles

[Seth]

That's two and a half million American lives saved every year, thanks to guns. Just think about that.

Imagine how many lives could be saved if they all carried Bazookas?

Many fewer of course, because in order to be legally justified in using a Bazooka as a weapon of self defense you would have to ensure that the blast harmed no one but the attacker. Now, if your attacker is in an armored vehicle, a Bazooka (or LAW) might be extremely useful...and entirely legal both to possess and use under the right circumstances.

[Seth]

According to US dog-lovers, police shootings of dogs is growing exponentially.
It started with a few cases, and sort of took off.

But if it's ok for a cop to kill a dog that he assumes is going to attack, then it's ok for everybody.

Yes, in fact, it is. In fact, the level of perceived threat from a dog attack that justifies killing the dog is substantially lower than for killing a human. All you need is to be fearful of injury. Any kind of injury, even a single bite. You see, dogs are not humans, they are property, and the right of a citizen to defend against any kind of physical injury from animate property is quite broad. You can shoot a bull or a horse or a bear or a mountain lion just because it appears to be about to attack and face no charges at all.

Concealed carriers everywhere can plug any mutt that isn't on a lead.

Well, certainly they can, but whether they should or not is a different matter. You see, the dog is still private property, so killing it might lead to a civil suit for damages where you would have to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that you were justified in shooting the dog. I know this because I've shot several dogs in the past on my ranch. All that is required is that the dog be at large and be "harassing or chasing" either wildlife or livestock, which includes everything from birds to bulls, and I can (and have) shot them dead on the spot. I was never the subject of a civil suit because in each case the dogs were at large, had been previously reported as being habitually at large, and they were in fact chasing my livestock at the time, so the Sheriff's deputy who came to collect the carcasses (who knew the dogs and their owners because she had previously issued them citations) just took the carcasses and didn't make out a report, and gave the carcasses to the owners and said "I told you so" and then left.

Which, if it wasn't for the innocent people getting killed, would be a good thing.
(the dog in my link WAS on a chain, according to a report)

So guns aren't ALL bad. Just mostly.

Hypocrisy made manifest. If it's okay to shoot a dangerous dog, why isn't it okay to shoot a dangerous person?

[Seth]

G'won, shoot my dog one more time, muthafucker. I dare you...

Control your dog and I won't have to.

Seriously, though, this dog shooting bullshit needs to stop. There have been cases where cops chased a suspect into someone's yard and shot the dog that was there because the dog was aggressive. That's what the fucking dog is THERE for, you stupid fucking fascist cunt. Somebody comes running through my backyard, at night, and they'll be lucky if it's only the dogs they're dealing with and not an armed Lak. I KEEEL you.

And I happen to agree completely with you. Police should be prohibited from killing dogs on private property they have forcibly or suddenly entered even if the dog attacks them because that is one of the inherent risks they must accept as police officers. Even if they are looking for a suspect and enter someone's house under exigent circumstances exceptions to the search warrant requirement, they should not be permitted to kill a dog merely because it's protecting its owners, so long as the owners are not the suspects and are not siccing the dog on the officers.

I too have read about situations where police have barged into some unrelated person's house while claiming the exigent circumstance exception and, even though the dog had been moved to the bathroom with one of the family members precisely to protect both the dog and the officers, demanded entry to the bathroom and then shot the dog when it did what it was supposed to do, which was protect the 14 year old girl who was trying to restrain it. And then the cocksucker jackbooted thugs who have no business being cops just finished looking around and walked out without so much as an "I'm sorry I shot your dog" to the hysterical 14 year old.

Such things are intolerable violations of the 4th Amendment by virtue of the fact that they are the very essence of an "unreasonable search" of a private home. And it's the "exigent circumstance exception" to the search warrant requirement that's to blame.

What should happen, if the police have reasonable belief that a felon is hiding out in a private home and they want to search it is for them to establish a perimeter, get a warrant, allow the occupants of the home to restrain the dog and leave the house and THEN search it.

That's why the search warrant requirement exists in the 4th Amendment. Oh, and by the way, the "exigent circumstances exception" is NOT in the Constitution, it's a SCOTUS-created and, in my opinion, unconstitutional power granted to the police. If the Framers had wanted to except "exigent circumstances" from the search warrant requirement, they would have written it in the 4th Amendment, which says, quite clearly, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Any search is (or in my view anyway) should be axiomatically "unreasonable" unless it's accompanied by one of two things: a duly-issued warrant or voluntary consent of the occupants. After all, the whole reason for the amendment was the practice of King George's military troops, who quite commonly just kicked in doors and searched homes whenever the fuck they felt like it, just because they could. And they, like police today, can stretch the notion of "exigent circumstances" so egregiously that things like the above happen all the time.

Because, like every excess of the police in doing their jobs (like coercing confessions, which resulted in the Miranda warning ruling), misuse of "exigent circumstances" has become intolerably widespread, it's therefore time to get rid of the exigent circumstance exception, by constitutional amendment if necessary, and force the police to slow down and get a warrant, or alternatively be polite to non-suspects, cooperate with them and care for their goods and property, and ASK PERMISSION TO SEARCH.

And the police have no one but themselves to blame for overstepping their authority which results in THEM having the leash put back on.

[mistermack]

Of course, in the days of the "wild west", which is what the gun-fantasists really hanker for, it was considered despicable to carry a concealed gun.

Only women, or cheating poker players, carried the concealed derringer.
Real men carried their guns on their hips, and only used them in the centre of main street, at high noon, with everybody else peeping through the window. ( or those swinging saloon doors )

So maybe they should make it illegal to carry a concealed gun, or shooting people after 1pm or before 11am, and then, only in the centre of the main street.

And Mexicans of course, should be banned from carrying guns altogether. They are always villains. Everyone know that. They are only after the gold.
And niggers of course. I don't want a shoe-shine off someone carrying a gun.

So lets just have white men, carrying guns on their hips, shooting it out on main street at noon.
I'd like that.

[Seth]

Of course, in the days of the "wild west", which is what the gun-fantasists really hanker for, it was considered despicable to carry a concealed gun.

Only women, or cheating poker players, carried the concealed derringer.
Real men carried their guns on their hips, and only used them in the centre of main street, at high noon, with everybody else peeping through the window. ( or those swinging saloon doors )

So maybe they should make it illegal to carry a concealed gun, or shooting people after 1pm or before 11am, and then, only in the centre of the main street.

And Mexicans of course, should be banned from carrying guns altogether. They are always villains. Everyone know that. They are only after the gold.
And niggers of course. I don't want a shoe-shine off someone carrying a gun.

You are actually correct, and Colorado's state Constitution specifically excludes concealed carry as a right which "shall never be brought into question." That's why we have to have CCW permits here. However, here in Colorado OPEN CARRY is putatively legal, although some cities will harass citizens who open carry.

The dynamic changed when people became unused to seeing firearms carried openly sometime back in the 1920s or so. Many cities enacted (unconstitutional) ordinances against open carry and refused to issue CCW permits because doing so was optional for police chiefs and sheriffs according to state law. It used to be that a business card from the sheriff with "authorized to carry a concealed weapon" was adequate. But, as the "experiment" in widespread CCW permit issue began to permeate the nation, many local sheriff's decided to expand their issuance of permits from their political donors and friends to any otherwise law-abiding citizen. That eventually morphed at the state level into our current "shall issue" law which REQUIRES sheriffs (and only sheriffs, police chiefs were taken out of the system) to issue CCW permits to law-abiding citizens who request them so long as they meet the state-mandated criteria.

However, open carry is also making a comeback as activists insist on exercising their existing state constitutional right to open carry even in places that don't like it, like Boulder and Denver, and who tried to prohibit it, but were frustrated in doing so by the state legislature which "occupied the field" of firearms regulation and forbade local authorities from passing gun regulations more strict than those issue by the state itself, thus rendering ALL "open carry" bans null and void, with the sole exception of the power of local authorities to ban open carry (but not concealed carry) in public buildings. There are a few other areas where neither open nor concealed carry is legal, like jails, prisons, K-12 schools (a very bad idea), federal buildings, sterile areas of airports and public buildings where full time security with metal detectors and searches are in place, like courthouses.

But by and large it's perfectly legal to openly carry in Colorado and it's not all that unusual these days.

But, as responsible gun owners, we really don't want to frighten the hoplophobes and cause a fuss, so we much prefer to carry concealed, which keeps the hoplophobes from panicking and wasting 911 time and also has the direct benefit of force-multiplying the effectiveness of carrying defensive firearms by making sure that criminals DO NOT KNOW who is packing and who is not, and therefore who will shoot them dead if they try to rob them...which leads directly to them finding other means of obtaining money than street robbery, because they are cowards and don't want to get shot.

So I'm fine with open carry, and if that's what you want, that's what you should get, and I'd be happy to come wander around your town wearing my Level IV body armor and other "battle rattle" while openly carrying my handgun and rifle...just to annoy the fuckwits who live down there to no end.

As for the "Mexicans" and "niggers," I'll let you try to take their guns away from them. Hell, I'll even lend them a gun and ammunition so you can try to take it away from them. Then I won't have to read your crap anymore.

[Seth]

This guy needed a gun, bad...

But he took on the killer anyway. Good for him.

Heroic veteran, 75, fights off knife-wielding teenager who burst into chess class full of young children and screamed: 'I'm going to kill some people'

James Vernon was teaching 16 children chess in Morton Library, Illinois
Dustin Brown, 19, burst in carrying hunting knives and threatened to kill
Army veteran Mr Vernon put himself between Brown and terrified children
He called on his military training to disarm Brown with his bare hands
Hero was slashed across the hand by five-inch blade but pinned down teenager while the children escaped
Brown will face charges including attempted murder and aggravated battery to an elderly person

By Ollie Gillman For Dailymail.com

Published: 22:48 EST, 16 October 2015 | Updated: 00:10 EST, 17 October 2015

68
shares

View comments

A heroic 75-year-old Army veteran who fought off a knife-wielding teenager threatening to kill children in a library has spoken of the moment he confronted the attacker.

James Vernon was teaching 16 young children chess at Morton Public Library in Illinois when Dustin Brown, 19, burst into the room and screamed: 'I'm going to kill some people!'

The brave former serviceman was slashed across the hand as he put himself between Brown and the terrified children, giving them time to escape.
Hero: Army veteran James Vernon, 75, fought off knife-wielding Dustin Brown, 19, after he burst into a library and threatened to kill children at a chess club
+3

Hero: Army veteran James Vernon, 75, fought off knife-wielding Dustin Brown, 19, after he burst into a library and threatened to kill children at a chess club

Calling on the knife-fight training he was given in the US Army 50 years ago, Mr Vernon disarmed Brown, who according to a prosecutor's court affidavit later said: 'I failed my mission to kill everyone.'

Brown said he had been planning to kill people and then himself for two weeks, the affidavit alleged, and burst into the library carrying two knives in a backpack on Tuesday afternoon

He had wrapped the handles in tape to give them better grip, the Pekin Daily Times reported.
Charged: Brown burst into Morton Library, Illinois, and screamed: 'I'm going to kill some people!'

Charged: Brown burst into Morton Library, Illinois, and screamed: 'I'm going to kill some people!'

Brown, who is free on bond while facing charges of possessing child pornography, approached the chess club and allegedly said he wanted to kill the children, who were aged between seven and 13.

Fearless Mr Vernon, a retired IT specialist, said Brown was holding two hunting knives with five-inch blades when he 'ran into the room yelling, "I'm going to kill some people!"'

As the children hid under tables, Mr Vernon tried to deflect the teenager's attention.

He slowly approached the knife-wielding man, causing him to back away and allow the veteran to get in between the attacker and the door.

'I gave [the children] the cue to get the heck out of there, and, boy, they did that. Quick, like rabbits,' Mr Vernon said.

He added: 'There were no more potential victims in the room. He focused on me. There was no more talking.'

Mr Vernon, who was trained the Army but did not serve, said he blocked Brown's attack with his left hand, cutting two arteries and a tendon.

'I should have hit his wrist. That's how you're trained, but it's been half a century,' the brave man said.
Fearless: The brave former serviceman was slashed across the hand as he put himself between Brown and the children, giving them time to escape

Fearless: The brave former serviceman was slashed across the hand as he put himself between Brown and the children, giving them time to escape
Brown said he had been planning to kill people and then himself for two weeks, a prosecutor's affidavit alleged, and burst into the library (pictured) carrying two knives in a backpack

Brown said he had been planning to kill people and then himself for two weeks, a prosecutor's affidavit alleged, and burst into the library (pictured) carrying two knives in a backpack

Acting fast, Mr Vernon grabbed hold of Brown and threw him on to a table before pinning him down.

A library worker quickly removed the knifes and helped hold Brown down until police arrived.

Mr Vernon is now recovering at home after surgery on his hand.

Brown will appear in court on November 5 charged with attempted murder, armed violence, aggravated battery to an elderly person and burglary.

He is also due in court next week to face the 22 child pornography charges.

[mistermack]

The intruder didn't have a gun.

And nobody was killed.

If only more school attackers could be deprived of guns, the classroom would be a safer place.

[Seth]

The intruder didn't have a gun.

No, he had a knife, which by definition is a "deadly weapon," or had that fact escaped you...as I suspect it has.

And nobody was killed.

Because an old man with military training took it upon himself to defend everyone else at serious risk to his life and safety, using nothing but his hands, which may never operate as before again after he selflessly sacrificed them to the interests of the children that the armed nutter was intent on killing, by his own admission.

If only more school attackers could be deprived of guns, the classroom would be a safer place.

I don't disagree with that sentiment at all. What I disagree with is your obvious implication that any person with a gun might suddenly turn into a school attacker and therefore everyone needs to be disarmed of their guns. That's just asinine.

What that old fellow needed was a handgun with which to shoot dead the attacker without having to risk permanent disability or death, particularly in light of the fact that he was the custodian and guardian of those children and had at least a moral responsibility to make sure they remained safe, as he did, but which would have been far more certain, final and effective if he'd had a handgun and used it properly. Had he done so, we wouldn't have to now spend hundreds of thousands of dollars trying, convicting and incarcerating someone who ought to simply be dead right now, which is ever so much cheaper and more certain to prevent recidivisim.

[mistermack]

The intruder didn't have a gun.

And nobody was killed.

[Seth]

The intruder didn't have a gun.

And nobody was killed.

The intruder had a knife, and had the teacher been a 90 year old 100 pound woman, people would have died.

And the intruder should have died rather than being able to draw so much as one single drop of blood from anyone other than himself.

That's what you don't seem to get. The intruder had no right to attack anyone, much less force a man to risk his life and suffer what may be permanent disability into using his hands to defend everyone in the building, and so the intruder forfeited his right to life by threatening the lives of others and could have lawfully been killed with a single (or multiple) gunshots from a lawfully carried handgun, which would have prevented any other injuries completely.

The intruder's life and safety rights ceased to exist when he went forth intending to kill and injure others and rather than shedding the blood of others, he should have died on the spot.

The lesson: Don't threaten to kill people unlawfully while armed unlawfully with a deadly weapon because you forfeit your right to life in doing so.

[mistermack]

The intruder didn't have a gun.

And nobody was killed.

The lesson? Nobody killed is better than lots of people killed. No guns is better than some guns.

[Tero]

[Seth]

The intruder didn't have a gun.

The intruder had a knife, with which he intended to kill small children, a fact which seems to have escaped you.

And nobody was killed.

Pure unadulterated luck combined with skill and courage.

The lesson? Nobody killed is better than lots of people killed.

Bullshit socialist propaganda and false analogy. Nobody killed is better than "lots of people killed" but "nobody killed" is NOT better than "dozens of children in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm prevented only by an adult willing to take on a deranged killer armed with two knives with his bare hands and receiving potentially disabling wounds because some fuckwit somewhere said he shouldn't be allowed to carry a defensive handgun in a children's library."

What's better than that is that the deranged killer shouts "I'm gonna kill some people" and immediately gets two bullets in the chest and one in the head before he can so much as nick anyone's skin. And the way that happens is for people who have custody of young children in public (or private) places to be armed with concealed handguns that they can use in an instant to protect their charges. I'd make it a god damned federal law that EVERY teacher in the country be REQUIRED to be armed with both a handgun and OC spray whenever they have custody and responsibility for someone else's children, and I'd toss any of them that refused out of the school on their ass and I'd have them sued into financial ruin if they fail to physically intervene in any school attack of any kind, even if they get killed while doing so.

Citizens are FORCED to send their children to school by the government, and in most places they are FORBIDDEN from being armed at school, much less stand armed guard at the entrance, and therefore the government, and the government agents (administrators, staff and teachers) have a legal duty to whatever is required to protect the children that have been forcibly placed in their custody, which includes being trained and armed to act against armed attackers.

Fuck the whole "gun free school" bullshit, it's clearly evident that schools are exactly where we NEED armed personnel on guard whenever children are present.

Were I Governor, I'd call up the State Militia and assign a half dozen of them to each and every schoolhouse in the state, armed with full military body armor and automatic weapons with orders to shoot to kill anyone who attempts to attack the school or its students.

I see no reason to pander to the liberals, Marxists, Progressives or other scum-sucking hoplophobes who don't want to turn schools into "armed fortresses" because they are liberal pussies. Armed fortresses are exactly what we need to prevent school shootings because right now, the "gun free" nature of schools created by the fuckwits who argue that guns are bad and children shouldn't be "exposed" to them are who are completely and totally responsible for each and every dead child, teacher and administrator.

No guns is better than some guns.

So, by that idiotic logic, the responding police should be armed either, but they too should have to try to take down a killer armed with knives with their bare hands.

How about YOU give it a bash instead. I don't think you'd come off nearly as well as a 75 year old ex-soldier. I think you'd be dead right now, and so would a number of kids.