Unitarian church shootings

[Lady's Human]

Unlike you, Sara, I wasn't questioning whether or not it was started by target shooting (If someone who does something for a living states what they believe as fact, I tend to believe it, unlike you) I was questioning how they linked it to target shooting. Unlike some who take the MSM at face value, I'd like to see something a little more in depth before I take it as gospel.

The only thing in any of the reports about the yosemite fires I found on the web was a single sentence stating that they had traced the fire to target shooting. In the thousands of rounds I've sent downrange, and the millions of rounds I've been responsible for going downrange, the only fires I've ever seen started were from tracers, which are normally military use only.I've never seen a range fire started by Bubba with his shotgun.

[Suki Wingy]

yeesh that's a little scarey! Every single person I met in my old (Unitarian) church was pretty open and caring. That's pretty much the only thing they had in common, but still.

[jennielynn1970]

I think our culture is just gun obsessed. Heaven forbid you revoke the rights of the people to own as many of them as they want as well. That's just so "un-American". (that was sarcasm)

Too many guns in the hands of too many people who shouldn't hold anything sharper than pencil.

[Puckstop31]

Someday it would be nice if people would stop judging groups of people, or things, by the lowset common denominator. ALL people.

In the United States, we have a God given and 2nd Amendment confirmed right to Keep and Bear Arms. The reason for this is clearly defined by a vast majority of our founders. It is not about hunting, target shooting etc. It is about EVERY human's right to defend themSELVES from tryanny no matter what form it takes. Should this right be removed, we are no longer truly free. All our other rights are simply on 'loan'.

I pray daily that I will never need to use my firearms to protect myself and/or my family. Or worse, protect myself from tyranny of government. But if necessary I can and I WILL.

Further, for a great many people here, we just grew up in a culture where firearms were not 'taboo'. They were just another part of living. ANYthing that is sensationalized can be made to be seen "poorly". For a great many of us, it is just a part of who we are. Part of the American culture. Not that American culture is taught or revered anymore.

"Take away a peoples culture and they are easily persuaded."
Karl Marx

So, to the anti-gun folks out there... There are MANY gun control type laws out there. Why not enforce those, rather than make new and absurd ones. Or, why must you try to impose your will on us? I personally would want nothing of imposing my will on you.

"A people who are willing to give up a little bit of freedom for a little bit of security shall have nor deserve, either."
Benjamin Franklin.

[lady_zana]

In the United States, we have a God given and 2nd Amendment confirmed right to Keep and Bear Arms. The reason for this is clearly defined by a vast majority of our founders. It is not about hunting, target shooting etc. .

But one must consider that the founders of this nation were not envisioning a world like ours. I have no problem with someone owning a gun if they know how to use it, care for it, and keep it away from those who don't. It's these people with military issue weapons that bother me. The founders never meant for us to have machine guns in our houses.

[Puckstop31]

It's these people with military issue weapons that bother me. The founders never meant for us to have machine guns in our houses.

The primary arguement of the anti-gun types is that the 2nd Amendment is ONLY applicable to service in a militia. I could go into what a milita is, but that is not the point here. If that arguement was indeed true, then the founders DID intend for the people to possess military weapons.

I own military weapons, legally. Does that mean I bother you? A honest, law abiding citizen, well trained in their use?

Make all the gun laws you want. They never have and never will do squat to deter crime, because criminals by definition do not follow the law. A disarmed and defenceless citizenry are nothing but chattle.

[lady_zana]

The primary arguement of the anti-gun types is that the 2nd Amendment is ONLY applicable to service in a militia. I could go into what a milita is, but that is not the point here. If that arguement was indeed true, then the founders DID intend for the people to possess military weapons.

I own military weapons, legally. Does that mean I bother you? A honest, law abiding citizen, well trained in their use?

Make all the gun laws you want. They never have and never will do squat to deter crime, because criminals by definition do not follow the law. A disarmed and defenceless citizenry are nothing but chattle.

But their idea of a military weapon would have been vastly different from a 2008 idea of a military weapon because they could not have dreamed of the technology we have created.

I have a friend who is in the military. She has a couple small military issue handgun. I have no problem with that because she knows how to use them and how to keep people who don't from messing with them. What I have a problem with is the huge machine guns that people have in their house. I don't see any reason why someone would need something that looks like a rocket launcher in their home to defend themselves.

[Puckstop31]

But their idea of a military weapon would have been vastly different from a 2008 idea of a military weapon because they could not have dreamed of the technology we have created.

I have a friend who is in the military. She has a couple small military issue handgun. I have no problem with that because she knows how to use them and how to keep people who don't from messing with them. What I have a problem with is the huge machine guns that people have in their house. I don't see any reason why someone would need something that looks like a rocket launcher in their home to defend themselves.

I don't see how the technology improvements make a difference. The same arguement could be made all through history. "Sure, a musket is OK, but a RIFLED musket?" "Ok, a rifled musket is OK, but what about a lever action rifle" And so on and so forth. It should be about the paradigm of the day.

But, a little sensation much with the "HUGE machine gun" thing? How many people do you know with a 'huge machine gun' in their home. What do you define as a huge machine gun? Rocket launcher? Huh? Do you honestly know anybody who owns a 'machine gun'? BTW, the legal definition of a machine gun is a 'self loading weapon that will repeatedly fire while the trigger is depressed. I only know one person who has a license for such a thing. They are very difficult to obtain, as they should be.

[smokey the elder]

Getting back to the point...I don't want to argue the merits of the 2nd Amendment. There are valid points on both sides of the argument. The point is this is an example of man's inhumanity to man, and if the guy did not have a gun, and had so much hate, he'd use a bomb, a knife or a crossbow to kill people.

[sparks19]

Getting back to the point...I don't want to argue the merits of the 2nd Amendment. There are valid points on both sides of the argument. The point is this is an example of man's inhumanity to man, and if the guy did not have a gun, and had so much hate, he'd use a bomb, a knife or a crossbow to kill people.

Agreed.

it doesn't matter the means... what matters is that this HAPPENS at all. How can someone HATE so much that they would just take the lives of innocent people without blinking.

[Cataholic]

Getting back to the point...I don't want to argue the merits of the 2nd Amendment. There are valid points on both sides of the argument. The point is this is an example of man's inhumanity to man, and if the guy did not have a gun, and had so much hate, he'd use a bomb, a knife or a crossbow to kill people.

Ah...the second amendment. Kind of like a shield, then a weapon, all at the same time, depending on who is arguing the point.

I think that the problem IS man's inhumanity to man, and that includes my opinion that people that kill (leaving aside self defense, and perhaps a few other noted exceptions) are mentally unwell to begin with. So, imagine an honest, law-abiding, citizen, trained in weaponry (sic) going off the deep end. It happens. While guns might not be the problem, I don't see too much blunt instrument killing taking place. When is the last time we read about a mass knifing taking place? Or, a mass baseball bat event? Ten people killed with a broom....I guess it could happen, but, it seems that a gun is much more prevalent.

I AM concerned about my neighbor's "right" to carry a gun. His/her "right" has a way to irrevocably influence my family's life, to me, without a justifiable use. A handgun in the city? WhatEVER for?

[Edwina's Secretary]

Unlike you, Sara, I wasn't questioning whether or not it was started by target shooting (If someone who does something for a living states what they believe as fact, I tend to believe it, unlike you) I was questioning how they linked it to target shooting. Unlike some who take the MSM at face value, I'd like to see something a little more in depth before I take it as gospel.

The only thing in any of the reports about the yosemite fires I found on the web was a single sentence stating that they had traced the fire to target shooting. In the thousands of rounds I've sent downrange, and the millions of rounds I've been responsible for going downrange, the only fires I've ever seen started were from tracers, which are normally military use only.I've never seen a range fire started by Bubba with his shotgun.

I don't understand your first paragraph. (And I also don't think you are being truthful.) I believe the fire inspectors. You questioned it, I didn't. Perhaps, just perhaps, as I live in California, it is covered more extensively here?

How many rounds have you shot downhill in California, during high fire danger and during an epic drought? I live on the edge of Camp Pendleton and I can tell you there are frequent brush fires there from target practice.

So, if it had never happened to you, you don't believe it. If you have never seen it, it doesn't happen. Got it.

p.s. What is MSM????

[Puckstop31]

Ah...the second amendment. Kind of like a shield, then a weapon, all at the same time, depending on who is arguing the point.

I think that the problem IS man's inhumanity to man, and that includes my opinion that people that kill (leaving aside self defense, and perhaps a few other noted exceptions) are mentally unwell to begin with. So, imagine an honest, law-abiding, citizen, trained in weaponry (sic) going off the deep end. It happens. While guns might not be the problem, I don't see too much blunt instrument killing taking place. When is the last time we read about a mass knifing taking place? Or, a mass baseball bat event? Ten people killed with a broom....I guess it could happen, but, it seems that a gun is much more prevalent.

I cannot disagree about the problem being man's inhumanity to itself. We are a imperfect bunch and will always be that way. However, I refuse to believe that more than a very SMALL portion of us are the type who would commit thes unspeakable acts. Which brings me back to my point about judging entire groups based on the very small percentage of people who commit evil acts. I believe VERY strongly in the concept of individual liberty and responsibility. It is a free person's DUTY to strive to take care of themselves. If you place the responsibility for your well being into another's hand, well, you take a risk.

Read up on violence in the UK. They pretty much banned almost all firearms. So it turns to knives. Next, watch them ban knives. It turns to sticks and stones.

So why 'punish' the VASt majority of responsible people for the acts of a very, very few?

I AM concerned about my neighbor's "right" to carry a gun. His/her "right" has a way to irrevocably influence my family's life, to me, without a justifiable use. A handgun in the city? WhatEVER for?

Well, the chances of you being murdered by a person with a firearm are WAY, WAY lower than that of being killed by a drunk driver. Yet, I bet you don't fear my 'right' to drive.

I do understand the concept of hoplophobia, which you obviously have. It is the duty of me and my fellow responsible gun owners to behave in a manner which might help alleviate that fear. It is also too bad you very rarely hear about the c. 2.5 MILLION violent crimes that are prevented every year by a law abiding gun owner. A vast majority of those situations are defused with out even having to fire the weapon.

A handgun in the city? The only time I ever needed to use a weapon to protect myself was in a city. All I did was produce it and off he ran.

Finally, I love my family too much to put their safety into anyone's hands but my own. You are free to choose otherwise, but it would be wrong for YOU to make that choice for me.

[Grace]

p.s. What is MSM????

I do believe that is Main Stream Media.

[K9soul]

I tend to see points to both sides of the gun arguments.. But I think a lot of the problem lies in how much more violent and unstable people seem to be. I know some of it could be a case of we see it more because it's reported more, but it just seems to me there are a lot of people snapping and going on rampages these days compared to when I was younger. We could take squirt guns to school and no one would think anything of it. Now it can have serious repercussions.

This article I just saw tonight doesn't involve a gun but is just as shocking, if not more to me. http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=3896502