Guns don't kill 12 y/o Trick or treaters....People do....

[akflightmedic]

Some comments are great for stirring the pot.

[jsadin]

A silly grin (or four/five in a row) does not a defensible position make. The older I get the more I put aside my preconceived notions, emotional responses, etc, and I look for facts and concrete arguments to back my stance. Saying you back a certain position because it's just how you "feel" is way too simplistic for educated discussions. Face to face I could overlook such things due to the personal nature of such encounters, but that is not the case with the written word. Writing affords us endless opportunity to research and defend our spot. To refuse to accept any input that does not agree with our emotional state is just disgraceful and myopic.

[Michael]

So what do you want him to say?

[Lone Star]

I just have personal issues with high powered assault weapons, my views will not change and had this weapon not been readily legal in some places and available for this guy to purchase, we would possibly not be reading an obituary about this boy on what is supposed to be a fun, safe night of enjoyment in the greatest country in the world (according to some).

When the right to arm yourself was created, high powered assault weapons were not part of the equation, nor could they ever have imagined the type of weaponary we posess nowadays.

The second amendment to the U.S. constitution holds that it is the right to keep and bear arms. While the founding fathers could not have imagined the technological advances in firearms, the United States Supreme Court ruled (and recently, I might add), that the right to keep and bear arms was in fact, an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT, and not one reserved for only militias.

That being said, when the Supreme Court handed down this ruling, there was no restrictions mentioned as to the type of arms that could be kept. Further, I’m convinced that when the matter was under review by the Supreme Court, they were more than ‘adequately aware’ of the technological advances, and the types of weaponry available on today’s markets!

Do you know how many pieces of buckshot are in one 12-gauge slug? Multiply that times the 7 rounds in the shotgun, and you have just way outnumbered the capacity of any "assault rifle" magazine. And trust me, they do all go through the door and the wall, with no problem. Especially after that first round paves the way.

The term ‘slug’ refers to one piece of shot in the shell. In the case where there are multiple projectiles, the round is then referred to as a ‘shot shell’, and the number of pieces of shot in each shell is determined by the size of the individual shot, or what the shot is used for. For example, 000 buckshot contains only 7 projectiles, where as a shotgun shell loaded with ‘birdshot’ will contain significantly more projectiles, but of a smaller diameter.

The question is why was a convicted felon in possession of any firearm? Why was his girlfriend caught running from the scene with $7500.00 in cash? I can see "drug dealer" all over this. The man has been charged with murder and two counts of assault with intent to kill. I think the police have seen right through his BS protection excuse.

I’ve read multiple accounts of this story, and nowhere have I seen any mention of the suspects girlfriend, whether fleeing from the house or not. Secondly, in those multiple reports, I haven’t seen any mention of anyone being found in possession of any amount of money. My question is where are these ‘facts’ being gleaned from?

I agree that the question of ‘Why was a convicted felon in possession of a firearm in the first place?” is the one that deserves the answer first. Had the existing laws been enforced, this ex-convict should have NEVER been allowed to purchase, own or ‘hold’ this firearm in the first place!

If I’m reading things correctly, if this person has multiple felony convictions, South Carolina must not have a ‘habitual offender’ statute in place. In some states, 3 felony convictions (not necessarily for the same ‘type’ of crime, [i.e.; drugs], the person is deemed a ‘habitual offender’ and is sentenced to life in prison, usually with no chance of parole) This is sometimes referred to as the ‘three strike law’.

In closing, I have to agree with the poster that mentioned creating new laws, when we don't enforce the ones currently 'on the books'. New legislation is not the answer. There's enough laws 'on the books' already to regulate the firearms, and who can and cannot have what.

[CBEMT]

Yes, I am willing to admit that and I am ok with that.

So what the Constitution of the United States has to say on the matter means nothing to you. I appreciate your honesty.

When the right to arm yourself was created, high powered assault weapons were not part of the equation, nor could they ever have imagined the type of weaponary we posess nowadays.

I don't see how it matters. It says what it says.

No matter what studies are quoted, laws explained, positions defended, I will NOT change my views on high powered assault weapons. I am NOT against gun ownership, only certain types.

As illogical as it may seem, it is my right to think so vastly different from the majority. Lucky for you supporters, the NRA has lots of money and lots of friends in high places, so people like me are just pissing in the wind for the most part, but alas...I will continue to piss.

It is your right. And it's my right to be frightened at the fact that you vote based more on emotion than fact. I can only hope you don't practice medicine that way.

[akflightmedic]

A silly grin (or four/five in a row) does not a defensible position make. The older I get the more I put aside my preconceived notions, emotional responses, etc, and I look for facts and concrete arguments to back my stance. Saying you back a certain position because it's just how you "feel" is way too simplistic for educated discussions. Face to face I could overlook such things due to the personal nature of such encounters, but that is not the case with the written word. Writing affords us endless opportunity to research and defend our spot. To refuse to accept any input that does not agree with our emotional state is just disgraceful and myopic.

Ahh, but I did state my opinions earlier. At the point the smiley faces were made, they were directed at Dwayne and basically reinforced a private conversation we had just held via telephone. No, I do not expect you to know that, but the message was not for you despite being in a public place.

But as I said, I made my opinions clear early on, you evidently only focused on the end. Reading comprehension is so very important, I only wish more practiced it.

Anyways, this entire argument is moot...which I also conceded to earlier as well. This topic is near and dear to many Americans and enough studies, facts, support, etc can, and has been generated for both pro and con. The same goes for abortion, gay rights, religious rights,etc. There is always enough "ammo" for both sides to the point where no one really wins but we all lose.

Due to the "mootness" of this issue, I decided to CFU (Cowboy the Fuck Up) and share my views right or wrong for all to see and wait for the beatings to come, and they did. I have no qualms about that and rather enjoy being one who possesses different thought processes from the masses, again factually or emotionally based. I like to think it has always been "us" that get things to change from the norms which are usually held in place for many years by the masses.

Regardless, since this is such a dead issue, it is not one where I am passionate enough to sit here and link you to study after study supporting my view (even though they do exist), mainly because this issue is not the most pressing one in my life. By me "yelling louder" on this board accomplishes nothing at the moment.

This same tactic is employed by many large groups that are against some of the issues I support and I am able to sit and challenge them all day long with facts when all they can produce are largely emotional arguments. Yes, I have been on both sides of the fence; the difference is I realize it and am willing to state my views with a side order of hypocrisy.

To refuse to accept any input that does not agree with our emotional state is just disgraceful and myopic.

And this last statement of yours, definitely quote of the year.

I agree 100% as it can be stated unequivocally in relation to Christianity as well; bravo my fellow EMT City'er.

[akflightmedic]

So what the Constitution of the United States has to say on the matter means nothing to you. I appreciate your honesty.

I don't see how it matters. It says what it says.

It is your right. And it's my right to be frightened at the fact that you vote based more on emotion than fact. I can only hope you don't practice medicine that way.

So when we do not like what we see or hear, because it is NOT what we wish to see or hear, we resort to belittling or ad homen attacks.

If all you got is an ad homen attack, I consider myself victor in this debate.

Interesting enough however, is that despite everyone putting the onus on me to prove why we should NOT have the "high powered"(for Dust) assault rifles, not one of you have stated reasons why we should. Other than blowing out some doors for fun and because the current Supreme Court (totally uninfluenced by any politicians or lobby groups) determined it ok, why do we NEED these weapons? Legitimate question here and remember, I am NOT against gun ownership, I have them in my home, always have, always will, but WHY do we need these assault rifles?

[Michael]

The older I get the more I put aside my preconceived notions, emotional responses, etc, and I look for facts and concrete arguments to back my stance. Saying you back a certain position because it's just how you "feel" is way too simplistic for educated discussions. Face to face I could overlook such things due to the personal nature of such encounters, but that is not the case with the written word. Writing affords us endless opportunity to research and defend our spot. To refuse to accept any input that does not agree with our emotional state is just disgraceful and myopic.

js, kudos to you for acknowledging that you too have held preconceived notions and emotional responses. Now, how did you treat your preconceived notions and emotional responses before you got old enough to put them aside? And, assuming and hoping you will grow still older and continue to look for facts and concrete arguments to back your stances, how do you currently treat your surviving preconceived notions and emotional responses in a non-myopic, non-disgraceful way?

But whatever is disgraceful about someone's having sufficient self-awareness and the attendant courage to characterize his prejudices as prejudices, as you in fact have -- nobly to my mind -- just done? The only difference is that AK specified one of his, and you stopped short of specifying any of yours (which you're of course perfectly entitled to do, though I admit you've piqued my interest).

Isn't it more a productive starting point to acknowledge rather than deny, whether to oneself or to others, that one holds fixed opinions? Truthfully volunteering that one doesn't expect to change a particular view seems to me actually a more promising sign that one will actually allow new information in, whether or not the acquisition of that new information will be sufficiently persuasive to result in immediate conversion, or even suspension, of his outlook.

How many people are entirely free of prejudice? And of those [s:22b4664ea7]many[/s:22b4664ea7] all that aren't, do you trust more the ones who deny or those who take responsibility for them?

I know someone who suspects that pit bulls are inherently more dangerous than other dogs and should be treated accordingly. I know someone whose religious tradition makes it impossible for him objectively to evaluate male circumcision; he knows that and has said so in a medical forum. The same person admits, because of personal history, to being unable to assess all the political claims to present-day Israel held by those who call themselves Palestinians. He says that makes their claims more rather than less interesting to him. The same person predicts that more people than realize it will one day regret their tattoos, assumes that dreadlocks are unhygienic, and certain regional and foreign accents as well as other mannerisms lead him to expect attendant limitations or virtues on the part of the speaker. He knows he holds many other beliefs he cannot prove and for which he realizes there may be evidence to the contrary that he will be unable to assess neutrally. That person is, alas, typing these words; with chagrin but not with despair or morbid shame, because he happens to know he's in good and plentiful company.

Sometimes we have a gut feeling that we cannot, at least not yet, rationally justify. Some of those gut feelings will prove to be invalid superstition, other times fruitful intuition. Most often (I suspect, without proof) they are true intimations about yet-undefinable facts oblique to the inference. That is, something's wrong with the situation, you have a mistaken image of what that wrong thing is, and go with it, missing the point but not being wholly uninformed. Lord knows we live our lives in stupefying ignorance; we must, since so many people are so certain that so many others are so wrong about so much! But until someone's belief start actively suppressing your freedom, what right do you have to demand proof he says he can't produce for you? And how would you enforce that right, if not by suppressing his freedom of speech? Isn't the most promising route to consensus an initial frankness about where each party to a conflict stands? It seems to me that only if he were actually legislating would he owe you an objective account of his reasons for forbidding you certain powers.

I suspect I know less about weaponry than probably anyone on this board. Still, my limited understanding of human nature and civil liberties leads me in the direction opposite to AK's stance. I don't really expect to change my views on this topic, because they are bundled with views I do know something about; for me to profess open-mindedness would be hypocritical, or a showing of gross self-deception.

I can only hope you don't practice medicine that way.

I happily suspect (though without proof) that he does, namely, that he keep his prejudices in view, where they can do the least damage.

[Michael]

Plus, AK types too fast, so he cross-posts with me, dammit.

[Michael]

And speaking of prejudices about weaponry...