'Tis the season: Guns ! Guns ! Guns!

#26
#26
VOLatile said:
More people carrying will probably mean that more people will try to take the law in their own hands.
Click to expand...

This really hasn't been shown to be the case. Concealed carry permits have increased dramatically over the last decade yet unjustified shootings are very, very rare among those licensed to carry. Most people don't regard Vermont as the Wild West yet they have (and for a long time) essentially no carry requirements. Anyone that can legally own a gun can carry, no permit required.
 
#27
#27
An unarmed populace who do nothing but promote an environment for those in power to abuse said power; the core principles our founding fathers set forth would unravel and America would cease to be.

People are going to kill people - what tools they use are inconsequential.

The left will continue to hide behind their "good intentions" in their quest to stifle gun ownership - but they are fooling no one except their cool aid drinking, bleeding heart base.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#28
#28
hndog609 said:
This really hasn't been shown to be the case. Concealed carry permits have increased dramatically over the last decade yet unjustified shootings are very, very rare among those licensed to carry. Most people don't regard Vermont as the Wild West yet they have (and for a long time) essentially no carry requirements. Anyone that can legally own a gun can carry, no permit required.
Click to expand...

It's all about the demographic. Vermont is a state without many people likely to commit crimes. If only the entire country was like that...
 
#29
#29
#31
#31
VOLatile said:
It's all about the demographic. Vermont is a state without many people likely to commit crimes. If only the entire country was like that...
Click to expand...

No argument where your specific Vermont observation is concerned but the increase in carry permits is large and covers the majority of the country. There just isn't any kind of significant correlation between increased license to carry and unjustified shootings. (that I'm aware of)
 
#35
#35
People demanding action either during or the immediate aftermath of a crisis are idiotic. Such thinking resulted in us passing the PATRIOT Act...
 
#37
#37
Burhead said:
People demanding action either during or the immediate aftermath of a crisis are idiotic. Such thinking resulted in us passing the PATRIOT Act...
Click to expand...

I think the old legal saying is "hard cases make for bad laws" or something like that.
 
#39
#39
therealUT said:
This is not an answer to my question.

Why would you be so bothered if someone wanted to press charges and there was a trial?
Click to expand...

Because the guy that killed the shooter only killed him for one reason..to stop him from killing MORE people CHILDREN!
 
#40
#40
volmaverick said:
Because the guy that killed the shooter only killed him for one reason..to stop him from killing MORE people CHILDREN!
Click to expand...

If someone was not convinced of this fact and wanted to press charges, why would it bother you if the facts were decided in a trial?
 
#42
#42
Saw the news, opened thread against better judgement...

Back_away_slowly.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#44
#44
therealUT said:
We have already gone over the option for the jury to levy a fine against the one bringing the complaint.
Click to expand...

Fines might help in discouraging such cases but still throws the accused under the bus for any costs they might incur. How about the accused gets to bill the accuser for their entire defense costs as well as any time lost from work and fuel/food costs during all proceedings? (and any other costs I haven't thought up yet that might come up)

If the above comes into play you can at least get me to listen. Short of that (and I've said this before) I don't want to see someone that's defended themselves or others even seeing the inside of a courtroom until sufficient evidence is presented to warrant the charge PRIOR to arrest.
 
#45
#45
lawgator1 said:
First the episode in Washington State at the mall, now the one in Connecticut at the elementary school. When will you guys finally admit that guns possession in this country is way, way too easy?
Click to expand...

Let's see, those deemed mentally ill, convicted felons, and those with misdemeanor convictions for domestic violence are already barred from owning guns. In addition, schools are gun-free zones. Oh yeah, I think it's still illegal to unjustifiably murder someone.

What more do you want? These schools are nothing but kill boxes. The teachers should be allowed to carry.

Violent crime has been cut in half in America over the last 30 years while gun ownership has increased.

Knife-wielding man injures 22 children in China - Courant.com
 
Last edited:
#46
#46
volmaverick said:
Shooter is dead..if someone stopped him by killing him I sure hope they charge him with first degree murder!
Click to expand...

Am I reading this right? You want a person who shot and killed a gunman that is mowing down children to receive a first degree murder charge!?!
Are you a member of the ACLU?





WTF!!!!!!!
 
#47
#47
I know know, don't click, don't read etc. But I really wish we could at least let the dirt settle on the victims of this tragedy's graves before we all start rushing out with our agendas in hand to sling poop at each other. As a father of a kindergartner this one is really hitting at home to me in a very hard way, and I'm more worried about what the parents both of the kids who they dropped this morning but now are identifying in morgues, and the ones who were blessed and their babies are still alive are going through at this point.
 
#50
#50
hndog609 said:
Fines might help in discouraging such cases but still throws the accused under the bus for any costs they might incur. How about the accused gets to bill the accuser for their entire defense costs as well as any time lost from work and fuel/food costs during all proceedings? (and any other costs I haven't thought up yet that might come up)

If the above comes into play you can at least get me to listen. Short of that (and I've said this before) I don't want to see someone that's defended themselves or others even seeing the inside of a courtroom until sufficient evidence is presented to warrant the charge PRIOR to arrest.
Click to expand...

1. Who is in charge of deciding whether the evidence is sufficient?

2. I understand there are going to be costs that are not readily quantifiable or that appear to be merely unfair. I think this exists on both sides, though. If one bringing the charges is already accepting the risk of being fined, then I have no problem with the other costs (I also think that the fine can include compensation to the jury and the defendant).

3. There is no reason that I can think of as to why the defendant ought to have to appear in court. The defendant can always hire someone else to appear, or if the defendant believes that the case is so incredibly weak, the defendant might simply choose not to appear at all. The burden is still on the accuser to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed a crime.

4. If the defendant does believe that the accusers case is strong enough that it warrants a strong rebuttal, then how does that argue in favor of not having a trial?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top