The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedDirectoriesMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 5 of 10 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 195
  1. #81
    Join Date
    Aug. 25, 2007
    Posts
    10,017

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HighFlyinBey++ View Post
    We can thank Connor v. Donaldson for that. The only way to "fix" that is to go back to SCOTUS and argue that overturning an individual's right to liberty is in the best interest of the public good.
    So if a person is found "mentally ill" we should just lock them up. Is that your solution?

    If so you would have been very happy back in the Old USSR because that's what they did, on a very large scale.

    I have a lot of concern over the present judicial standards but there's no way I'm in favor of recreating Bedlam.

    G.
    Mangalarga Marchador: Uma Raça, Uma Paixão


    2 members found this post helpful.

  2. #82
    Join Date
    Feb. 25, 2012
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,228

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Guilherme View Post
    The person suffering from mental disease or defect, almost by definition, is incapable of giving an "informed consent." G.
    Well that of course depends on how we define "mental disease or defect". Certainly the vast majority of folks who wander in for marital counseling, depression, workign with ADHD kids, or whatever are quite capable of consenting and are in no way mentally incompetent. Even most of the offenders are not going to be diagnosed with some kind of severe pathology. I have only had one veteran who was briefly involuntarily hospitalized (off his medication, threatened to kill medical staff). That is exactly what scares me; how we define it, and then, really, what do we do? I just don't see lockign people up by diagnosis and not by behavior, but I guess we'll see. I totally and completely agree that recreating Bedlam is hardly a viable option (IMO anyway)


    1 members found this post helpful.

  3. #83
    Join Date
    Dec. 11, 2006
    Location
    Cheesehead in Loudoun Co, VA
    Posts
    2,541

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Guilherme View Post
    So if a person is found "mentally ill" we should just lock them up. Is that your solution?

    If so you would have been very happy back in the Old USSR because that's what they did, on a very large scale.

    I have a lot of concern over the present judicial standards but there's no way I'm in favor of recreating Bedlam.

    G.
    How in the name of a white Christmas did you decide I believe THAT?

    Someone mentioned that we CANNOT just lock "these people" up. My mother & I just talked about why, so I posted it as an explanation of why and when that changed. Period.

    There's no freaking WAY a SCOTUS would overrule the right of individual liberty for the public good and for damn good reason.
    I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right
    Violence doesn't end violence. It extends it. Break the cycle.


    3 members found this post helpful.

  4. #84
    Join Date
    Dec. 22, 2000
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    15,185

    Default

    I asked this question multiple times on a previous thread, without getting any answer:

    Is there a valid reason for any private citizen to have access to an assault weapon designed for military use? With a clip that holds dozens of bullets? Why does anyone need a gun like that?


    5 members found this post helpful.

  5. #85
    Join Date
    Dec. 11, 2006
    Location
    Cheesehead in Loudoun Co, VA
    Posts
    2,541

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SLW View Post
    If someone has beaten another person to death with a hammer, why were they released from prison??
    Probably because he served the sentence he was given.
    I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right
    Violence doesn't end violence. It extends it. Break the cycle.



  6. #86
    Join Date
    Aug. 18, 2004
    Posts
    1,657

    Default

    From the AMA, which I'm not always on the same page with even as a physician, but this should raise some eyebrows about the "data" being batted around by the NRA:
    http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article....icleid=1487470


    2 members found this post helpful.

  7. #87
    Join Date
    Dec. 11, 2006
    Location
    Cheesehead in Loudoun Co, VA
    Posts
    2,541

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kat the Horse View Post
    The person who said there were armed folks around during these mass shootings is ill-informed.
    Columbine did indeed have an armed guard on site, Jefferson County Sheriff’s Deputy Neil Gardner
    As Gardner stepped out of his patrol car, Eric Harris turned his attention from shooting into the west doors of the high school to the student parking lot and to the deputy. Gardner, particularly visible in the bright yellow shirt of the community resource officer uniform, was the target of Harris’ bullets. Harris fired about 10 shots from his rifle at Gardner before his gun jammed. Although Gardner’s patrol car was not hit by bullets, two vehicles that he was parked behind were hit by Harris’ gunfire. Investigators later found two bullet holes in each of the cars.
    Armed civilian at Oregon mall shooting thought about firing at gunman
    As gun control debates rage after the Newtown tragedy, new details about last week’s Oregon mall shooting are heating up the argument. It turns out the murderer was not the only one with a gun. Shopper Nick Meli was legally armed [in an gun-free zone, mind you], and, while the killer’s rifle jammed, had the maniac in his sights. He did NOT pull the trigger, however, for fear of injuring a bystander behind the shooter. The killer then retreated and took his own life. So what does this prove? Did a concealed carrier end the rampage? Or show the limits of armed civilians fearful of injuring one another in emergencies?
    Gabrielle Giffords and the perils of guns: How an armed hero nearly shot the wrong man.

    Kudos to anyone who can truly keep a clear head and react quickly and without collateral damage in an ambush situation, particularly when surrounded by panicked and fleeing people or in a dark, noisy theater. As an innocent bystander, I'd much appreciate not being shot.
    I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right
    Violence doesn't end violence. It extends it. Break the cycle.


    7 members found this post helpful.

  8. #88
    Join Date
    Jul. 14, 2000
    Location
    midwest
    Posts
    10,827

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HighFlyinBey++ View Post
    Probably because he served the sentence he was given.
    So part of the problem is our judicial/parole board system, yes? Or does living in a country where beating someone to death with a hammer, serve 17 years then go free make you feel safe?



  9. #89
    Join Date
    May. 6, 2006
    Location
    rapidan,virginia
    Posts
    1,690

    Default

    Why is a teacher who chooses to arm him/herself in a school inherently more dangerous than an armed police officer inside a school? I carry a weapon concealed and I guarantee you'd never know it.
    "Can you imagine what I would do if I could do all I can?" Sun Tzu, The Art of War
    Rainy
    Stash


    4 members found this post helpful.

  10. #90
    Join Date
    Dec. 11, 2006
    Location
    Cheesehead in Loudoun Co, VA
    Posts
    2,541

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SLW View Post
    So part of the problem is our judicial/parole board system, yes? Or does living in a country where beating someone to death with a hammer, serve 17 years then go free make you feel safe?
    What is it that you want? A judicial system that never forgives or gives second chances?

    Yes, actually, I do feel safe. I didn't feel unsafe with the drug house across the street or when the murder/suicide/attempted murder happened half a block away or when the neighbor's 5 year old exposed himself and pulled a knife in my front yard (all in WI) or when a house 2 streets over got shot up in a drive-by (VA) or when the jewelry store across from the office was robbed at gun point and the would-be thief sparked a manhunt all over town. I even defended the ex-military guy who pulled his own weapon, but didn't fire because he didn't have a clean shot (robber took an elderly couple hostage, but found Jesus at their kitchen table, surrendered and pleaded guilty).

    I didn't feel unsafe when Posse Comatatis property was auctioned off on the courthouse steps, right outside my glass office door.

    I didn't feel unsafe when my office was evacuated for a called-in bomb threat (had the dude meant it, he would have just blown us up).

    I DID feel unsafe with my ex's fists and his feet and the way he flipped tables/punched holes in walls/kicked the pets/threw food at me/screamed at me just inches from my face/kicked my kid/knocked him down stairs/tackled him. And I learned in October that he once, years ago, threatened to bash in my son's head with a hammer. But his hunting rifle in the basement didn't make me feel unsafe in my own home.
    I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right
    Violence doesn't end violence. It extends it. Break the cycle.



  11. #91
    Join Date
    Dec. 22, 2000
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    15,185

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 2bayboys View Post
    Why is a teacher who chooses to arm him/herself in a school inherently more dangerous than an armed police officer inside a school? I carry a weapon concealed and I guarantee you'd never know it.
    Probably for the same reason the teacher is better at teaching kids than the police officer- extensive training and constant practice.


    7 members found this post helpful.

  12. #92
    Join Date
    May. 6, 2006
    Location
    rapidan,virginia
    Posts
    1,690

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MHM View Post
    Probably for the same reason the teacher is better at teaching kids than the police officer- extensive training and constant practice.
    We are not expecting the teacher to be a police officer, merely another line of defense in the face of an armed attacker. A police officer receives on average 18 weeks of training in an Academy and then on-the-street training in all sorts of policing tactics. They have to qualify with their weapons once a year. The vast majority of police officers NEVER fire their weapons in the line of duty and many never even unholster their weapon throughout their career. A police officer is a valuable resource, but so is a civilian trained in the use of a weapon, when the other option is to stand unarmed facing a madman with a firearm and a death wish.
    "Can you imagine what I would do if I could do all I can?" Sun Tzu, The Art of War
    Rainy
    Stash


    1 members found this post helpful.

  13. #93
    Join Date
    Dec. 11, 2006
    Location
    Cheesehead in Loudoun Co, VA
    Posts
    2,541

    Default

    Here's my concern: even with extensive firearms training, one has not been trained for firing while being fired at. As part of a political leadership program we got to experience part of the training Virginia State Police go through, computerized simulations. How easy it is even without someone firing at you to make mistakes. One can easily get tunnel vision as does a quarterback locked on a receiver who does not see the safety who will pick off the pass - the locked in shooter does not register someone who crosses his field of fire.

    And if the bullets are not frangible, might not they go through the target and kill others, or ricochet and cause collateral damage? ~ TeacherKen
    Yeah, I sure want my future grandkids in that potential environment...
    I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right
    Violence doesn't end violence. It extends it. Break the cycle.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  14. #94
    Join Date
    Dec. 22, 2000
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    15,185

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 2bayboys View Post
    The vast majority of police officers NEVER fire their weapons in the line of duty and many never even unholster their weapon throughout their career.
    No, but one of their job requirements is to be READY to use the gun at any time if needed. Which is why they go through training and regular certification.

    Teachers have their own very different job requirements.


    4 members found this post helpful.

  15. #95
    Join Date
    May. 6, 2006
    Location
    rapidan,virginia
    Posts
    1,690

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MHM View Post
    No, but one of their job requirements is to be READY to use the gun at any time if needed. Which is why they go through training and regular certification.

    Teachers have their own very different job requirements.
    I am not expecting it to be a requirement for a teacher to carry a weapon, but I would like for a teacher or other school employee who chooses to carry concealed to be allowed to do so. Why must that option be prevented? Has it made schools safer?
    "Can you imagine what I would do if I could do all I can?" Sun Tzu, The Art of War
    Rainy
    Stash


    1 members found this post helpful.

  16. #96
    Join Date
    Aug. 25, 2007
    Posts
    10,017

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MHM View Post
    I asked this question multiple times on a previous thread, without getting any answer:

    Is there a valid reason for any private citizen to have access to an assault weapon designed for military use? With a clip that holds dozens of bullets? Why does anyone need a gun like that?
    Some reasons for people to own high-capacity magazines and/or military grade weapons:

    1. Professional shooter (competition, tournaments, etc.).
    2. Farmer/rancher for control of dangerous predators (feral dogs, coy dogs, feral pigs, etc.).
    3. Historical re-enactor (WWI, WWII, Korea, Viet Nam, etc.).
    4. Civilian security for high value property (gems, cash, bearer bonds, etc.).
    5. Farmer/rancher with property along the U.S./Mexico border.
    6. Recreational shooter.

    And, last but not least:

    7. Any person who wishes to do so.

    No where in the Second Amendment is there a requirement for a "valid reason" to be stated before an otherwise eligible person can own any weapon for personal use.

    G.
    Mangalarga Marchador: Uma Raça, Uma Paixão


    6 members found this post helpful.

  17. #97
    Join Date
    Nov. 18, 2010
    Location
    california
    Posts
    5,041

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 2bayboys View Post
    We are not expecting the teacher to be a police officer, merely another line of defense in the face of an armed attacker. A police officer receives on average 18 weeks of training in an Academy and then on-the-street training in all sorts of policing tactics. They have to qualify with their weapons once a year. The vast majority of police officers NEVER fire their weapons in the line of duty and many never even unholster their weapon throughout their career. A police officer is a valuable resource, but so is a civilian trained in the use of a weapon, when the other option is to stand unarmed facing a madman with a firearm and a death wish.
    Police officers are required to be certified regularly when they carry weapons. I just cannot believe what I read on this forum sometimes. And the people who had firearms in other shootings were not able to shoot the shooter-and that statement has been made numerous times to those of you who are deaf to the logical argument that arming everyone will resolve this problem of automatic weapons being used for mass killings.


    3 members found this post helpful.

  18. #98
    Join Date
    Nov. 18, 2010
    Location
    california
    Posts
    5,041

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Guilherme View Post
    Some reasons for people to own high-capacity magazines and/or military grade weapons:

    1. Professional shooter (competition, tournaments, etc.).
    2. Farmer/rancher for control of dangerous predators (feral dogs, coy dogs, feral pigs, etc.).
    3. Historical re-enactor (WWI, WWII, Korea, Viet Nam, etc.).
    4. Civilian security for high value property (gems, cash, bearer bonds, etc.).
    5. Farmer/rancher with property along the U.S./Mexico border.
    6. Recreational shooter.

    And, last but not least:

    7. Any person who wishes to do so.

    No where in the Second Amendment is there a requirement for a "valid reason" to be stated before an otherwise eligible person can own any weapon for personal use.

    G.
    And then there are the people who cannot even reconsider the semi and automatic weapons because it is some "right" that they feel trumps the loss of lives, even children's lives. Nice sentiment but I think that view is not the majority and hopefully some common sense will prevail in this society.


    9 members found this post helpful.

  19. #99
    Join Date
    May. 6, 2006
    Location
    rapidan,virginia
    Posts
    1,690

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stolen virtue View Post
    Police officers are required to be certified regularly when they carry weapons. I just cannot believe what I read on this forum sometimes. And the people who had firearms in other shootings were not able to shoot the shooter-and that statement has been made numerous times to those of you who are deaf to the logical argument that arming everyone will resolve this problem of automatic weapons being used for mass killings.
    I have been employed by a city PD for 22 years and I am very familiar with the qualification requirements for police officers. I researched and rewrote our directives. I do not believe that police officers should be the only armed members of our society, there simply aren't enough of them.
    "Can you imagine what I would do if I could do all I can?" Sun Tzu, The Art of War
    Rainy
    Stash


    1 members found this post helpful.

  20. #100
    Join Date
    Feb. 25, 2012
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,228

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Guilherme View Post
    Some reasons for people to own high-capacity magazines and/or military grade weapons:

    1. Professional shooter (competition, tournaments, etc.).
    2. Farmer/rancher for control of dangerous predators (feral dogs, coy dogs, feral pigs, etc.).
    3. Historical re-enactor (WWI, WWII, Korea, Viet Nam, etc.).
    4. Civilian security for high value property (gems, cash, bearer bonds, etc.).
    5. Farmer/rancher with property along the U.S./Mexico border.
    6. Recreational shooter.

    And, last but not least:

    7. Any person who wishes to do so.

    No where in the Second Amendment is there a requirement for a "valid reason" to be stated before an otherwise eligible person can own any weapon for personal use.

    G.
    Great post, G, although I do not believe that true "military grade" firearms, ie those that can be switched from semi-auto to full auto, are available to the average citizen. There are lot of weapons designed to look like military grade but are not, in fact (I know for sure you know this!). Funny to be wrapping presents, and listening to "I saw mommy kissing santa claus" and intermittently discussing military grade weapons!! Hope everyone is having a lovely evening!!


    4 members found this post helpful.

Similar Threads

  1. USEF Armed Forces Attire
    By devildogtigress in forum Dressage
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: Feb. 4, 2012, 06:39 PM
  2. Well Armed
    By equinedriver in forum Racing
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: Nov. 17, 2011, 02:08 PM
  3. armed, mounted, and wired.
    By charismaryllis in forum Off Course
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Aug. 12, 2011, 06:10 PM
  4. Warning to all Foxhunters! Foxes are now armed!
    By spotnnotfarm in forum Off Course
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: Jan. 15, 2011, 01:26 PM
  5. Well Armed in TX - Anyone Connected?
    By Zevida in forum Racing
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: Oct. 22, 2009, 06:11 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •