Another Gun Nut "fears for his life"-Stands His Ground...kills rampaging PUPPY!

[leaningright]

Limit guns
Ala uk
1/4 the murders
Moron

The question is (for Zapp, Mott and others) do you think this idea that Toppy has been pushing for years now is the way to go?

 

[Beefy]

The TERROR this guy must have felt...facing down an EIGHT MONTH OLD puppy!

Ohio Vietnam vet shoots neighbor’s 8-month-old puppy dead in front of children


A family in Ohio is demanding justice after a neighbor shot their 8-month-old puppy to death in front of two children.

Martin Smith told WTOL that the Labrador/border collie mix named “Puppy” was running to greet the two boys as they got home from Sunday school on Sunday. That’s when 64-year-old Vietnam veteran Christopher Zimmerman pulled out a gun and shot the animal with the children looking on.

Smith said that his son “can’t get it out of his mind.”


“Noah was right there,” the father recalled. “It was really close. He thought he was gonna get shot. He didn’t know what to do, he just ran for his life.”

Although a complaint was filed last month about the puppy being off its leash, neighbors insisted to WTOL that Zimmerman had used excessive force.

“An 8-year-old boy should never have to witness anything like that,” neighbor Jan Blausey remarked. “Sunday, he couldn’t even come from upstairs.”

And now the family wants to know why Zimmerman was only charged with inducing panic and injuring an animal.

On her blog, mother Misty Smith said she couldn’t understand why “the same man who would coax Puppy into his driveway would suddenly turn on him and hate him so.”

“He will appear in court [on Wednesday] at 10 AM but the only charges are inducing panic and injuring an animal. That doesn’t get him help that gets him nothing and we are left with the mess,” she added. “What I need is someone who can help us make him get help someplace away from a school and a family with 7 children. I cannot get them another puppy as long as that man is there.”


“He is a veteran whose wife has to tell him over and over, ‘the war is over’. He needs help before someone is hurt worse. There has to be something that can be done.”

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/09/...-8-month-old-puppy-dead-in-front-of-children/

Come on, anecdotal evidence to support or decry any cause is stupid. I think that was SF's point in his first reply here. If you want to use anecdotal evidence, then ban peanuts, ban abortion pills (hear about that one?), ban everything. There's always going to be nutbags, with guns, with knives, with acid, with beer, with the internet..... on't be a one off fool.

 

[Beefy]

I find it hysterical that clowns like SF who spend page after page ridiculing and taunting me, suddenly decide:

DAMN...I guess it's finally time for some "honest debate"!

And I am just supposed to forget the badgering and derision and now answer their question.

Guns cannot be taken out of a society that has them everywhere already. They CAN be prevented from entering one that doesn't. Know the difference. Think about your examples. Be smart about this, not blind. Don't go evince on me here. I'm counting on it.

 

[Anti-Party]

The question is (for Zapp, Mott and others) do you think this idea that Toppy has been pushing for years now is the way to go?

You do realize that you are reading and quoting one of the only two 14 year olds on these forums................(You don't, It wasn't an attempt to force you to know what you are talking about, don't call me a tyrant)

The topic has been to embrace ignorance and learn from it. Not embrace ignorance and thrive on it. The NRA has lost long term valued members because they are rich enough and don't need the bribe money to push this big money agenda that "Everyone needs the weapons the military has"

Yet today we see worldwide and on these forums cases where people aren't allowed to pick up a rock if someone approaches them with a gun, and it was their fault for picking up the rock.

It's EXTREMELY important for gun owners to paint every criminal as a good person today because they think Obama is going to take away all of the guns. Because the NRA and Right Wing stated it.

 

[Anti-Party]

Guns cannot be taken out of a society that has them everywhere already. They CAN be prevented from entering one that doesn't. Know the difference. Think about your examples. Be smart about this, not blind. Don't go evince on me here. I'm counting on it.

The balance is common sense, The American people, Their Conclusion and Grandfather clause............It would take a pretty significant event to make America go door to door like the Right wing IDIOTS say the Left want to do. The people Control the Country, not the Constitution. "Slippery slope" talks were born from gun manufacturers to ensure the simple minded didn't affect sales. They based this on Americans being idiots and banning all weapons and the numb minded bought it.

 

[Anti-Party]

In My Opinion; America wants guns and educated gun ownership. The Right Wing is fighting for uneducated gun ownership and screaming "It's Trayvons fault". I'll leave it at that.

 

[tekkychick]

The question is (for Zapp, Mott and others) do you think this idea that Toppy has been pushing for years now is the way to go?

If we could limit guns the way the UK has, yes, that would certainly greatly reduce gun deaths.

However, as Beefy said, we have too many guns to go that route.

So, as anti-party said, we need educated gun owners who know how to store guns safely, who don't pull them out to shoot a puppy, who don't leave them loaded near kids.

BUT - since many Americans seem to be morons - we can use laws and technology to help. Trigger locks would keep kids from shooting guns accidentally. Limiting the number of rounds in a magazine and not allowing detachable magazines would limit the number of people shot. FULL BACKGROUND CHECKS - at gun shows, on the internet, when buying from someone who isn't a dealer - would help. What California is doing - if someone commits an offense that makes them ineligible to own guns, California is going to get those guns from them - would help. Limiting number of guns purchased per month across the country, so that someone doesn't buy a lot of guns in one state and ship them to another to sell on the streets.

To also help with the stupidity may require "REAL" gun training classes; not just pro forma ones, but serious classes that people take before they can get a gun. They should also be able to prove they can get somewhere near a target in their shooting accuracy. And yes, we should subsidize the fees for low income people. And then an educational publicity campaign, to tell people how to handle guns safely and to discourage people from even getting them.

And to help with the aftermath - a fee on every gun purchased that goes to a medical fund to pay for the people who are shot by guns.

Would any of this have stopped the guy in the op? hard to say. If we had a culture that frowned upon guns the way we frown upon cigarettes and driving while drunk maybe he wouldn't have pulled out his gun around kids. Advertising worked with those; we need to do the same for guns.

Now I'll sit back and wait for the predictable accusations of being a fascist or whatever.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

If we could limit guns the way the UK has, yes, that would certainly greatly reduce gun deaths.

However, as Beefy said, we have too many guns to go that route.

So, as anti-party said, we need educated gun owners who know how to store guns safely, who don't pull them out to shoot a puppy, who don't leave them loaded near kids.

BUT - since many Americans seem to be morons - we can use laws and technology to help. Trigger locks would keep kids from shooting guns accidentally. Limiting the number of rounds in a magazine and not allowing detachable magazines would limit the number of people shot. FULL BACKGROUND CHECKS - at gun shows, on the internet, when buying from someone who isn't a dealer - would help. What California is doing - if someone commits an offense that makes them ineligible to own guns, California is going to get those guns from them - would help. Limiting number of guns purchased per month across the country, so that someone doesn't buy a lot of guns in one state and ship them to another to sell on the streets.

To also help with the stupidity may require "REAL" gun training classes; not just pro forma ones, but serious classes that people take before they can get a gun. They should also be able to prove they can get somewhere near a target in their shooting accuracy. And yes, we should subsidize the fees for low income people. And then an educational publicity campaign, to tell people how to handle guns safely and to discourage people from even getting them.

And to help with the aftermath - a fee on every gun purchased that goes to a medical fund to pay for the people who are shot by guns.

Would any of this have stopped the guy in the op? hard to say. If we had a culture that frowned upon guns the way we frown upon cigarettes and driving while drunk maybe he wouldn't have pulled out his gun around kids. Advertising worked with those; we need to do the same for guns.

Now I'll sit back and wait for the predictable accusations of being a fascist or whatever.

Since you frown upon drunk drivers, are you then for requiring all cars to be equipped with lock out devices, to avoid the possibility of a drunk stealing/borrowing/using a car to drive drunk?
Are you also in favor of limiting how fast cars can go; seeing as how there's really no need for a car to go 125 mph?

 

[leaningright]

The balance is common sense, The American people, Their Conclusion and Grandfather clause............It would take a pretty significant event to make America go door to door like the Right wing IDIOTS say the Left want to do. The people Control the Country, not the Constitution. "Slippery slope" talks were born from gun manufacturers to ensure the simple minded didn't affect sales. They based this on Americans being idiots and banning all weapons and the numb minded bought it.

The bolded above is just plain wrong. Slippery slope was born from regular gun owners who were/are alert to what is happening and is legitimate. All one has to do is look at the history of gun laws in this country. Weapons have been banned based on nothing other than their looks ... that was stemmed from previous bans of fully automatic weapons. Then you just have to look at places like England, Australia and the like. What do you have to do to own a gun in those countries? Give them an inch and they'll take a mile. If you can't see that you are blind.

 

[Phantasmal]

The question is (for Zapp, Mott and others) do you think this idea that Toppy has been pushing for years now is the way to go?

Realistically it isn't going to happen anytime soon. The solution at this point is to enforce the laws we have in place and heavy penalties for those who break the laws.

 

[leaningright]

If we could limit guns the way the UK has, yes, that would certainly greatly reduce gun deaths.

That then would effectively be a ban on gun ownership or at the very least limit it to the rich.

However, as Beefy said, we have too many guns to go that route.

So, as anti-party said, we need educated gun owners who know how to store guns safely, who don't pull them out to shoot a puppy, who don't leave them loaded near kids.

But people are fallible. Gun owners know guns are deadly weapons and know they shouldn't do such things with them, but they will because they are human.

BUT - since many Americans seem to be morons - we can use laws and technology to help. Trigger locks would keep kids from shooting guns accidentally.

gun locks exist and I agree that people should use them in a household with kids if they don't have a gun safe. A gun that is designated for self defense should not be required to have a trigger lock on it so if a law requiring trigger locks were to be passed, such a gun should be excluded.

Limiting the number of rounds in a magazine and not allowing detachable magazines would limit the number of people shot.

While I don't see a reason for 30 round clips (other than they're fun to empty) I am not prepared to ban them like in the Clinton days. Someone may have a legitimate use for them.

FULL BACKGROUND CHECKS - at gun shows, on the internet, when buying from someone who isn't a dealer - would help.

I agree with making purchases at gun shows and internet purchases ... absolutely background check those ... and I would argue that most do. I disagree when it comes to private sales and would argue that transfers of this type are much more common mooing friends and family than someone selling to a criminal.

What California is doing - if someone commits an offense that makes them ineligible to own guns, California is going to get those guns from them - would help.

I definitely have no problems with this and would hope that all states do it.

Limiting number of guns purchased per month across the country, so that someone doesn't buy a lot of guns in one state and ship them to another to sell on the streets.

Disagree.

To also help with the stupidity may require "REAL" gun training classes; not just pro forma ones, but serious classes that people take before they can get a gun. They should also be able to prove they can get somewhere near a target in their shooting accuracy. And yes, we should subsidize the fees for low income people.

All I can say here is that is an awful lot of requirement and added expense for something that is considered by most folks to be a fundamental right guaranteed by the constitution. I would have to disagree here too.

And then an educational publicity campaign, to tell people how to handle guns safely and to discourage people from even getting them.

I am trying very hard not to say something smart aleky about the bolded above. I will just say that this needs to be done with alcohol much more than with guns, IMO.

And to help with the aftermath - a fee on every gun purchased that goes to a medical fund to pay for the people who are shot by guns.

Vehemently disagree. What are the fees up to by now on gun purchases in this post. Truly trying to price them out of the common man's range. Gun control (extinction) by regulation. I would argue that we should charge such a fee on alcohol, and where legalized, marijuana .... That is if we're gonna do it for guns.

Would any of this have stopped the guy in the op? hard to say. If we had a culture that frowned upon guns the way we frown upon cigarettes and driving while drunk maybe he wouldn't have pulled out his gun around kids. Advertising worked with those; we need to do the same for guns.

Again I would argue that with statements like the above you expose yourself as desiring to have guns gone, thus you do agree with Topper's post I referenced.

Now I'll sit back and wait for the predictable accusations of being a fascist or whatever.

I'll not call you a fascist. I'll just call you an American with whom I disagree on the topic of guns.

 

[leaningright]

Realistically it isn't going to happen anytime soon. The solution at this point is to enforce the laws we have in place and heavy penalties for those who break the laws.

I agree with this 100%.

 

[tekkychick]

LeaningRight, while obviously there are things we disagree on around guns, I appreciate your civilized dialog and your willingness to not disagree with some of the things I suggested.

Yes, I would like to have guns gone. And as the number of households owning guns has decreased, maybe we are moving more in that direction. And yes, I would encourage people to not own them - or, if they own them, to own them responsibly just like we ask them to drink responsibly if they are going to drink. That's my opinion; but of course, with our constitution, we can't just ban them.

So mainly I'm just commenting again to say thank you for not just insulting those of us who feel differently on this issue.

 

[cawacko]

That then would effectively be a ban on gun ownership or at the very least limit it to the rich.



But people are fallible. Gun owners know guns are deadly weapons and know they shouldn't do such things with them, but they will because they are human.

gun locks exist and I agree that people should use them in a household with kids if they don't have a gun safe. A gun that is designated for self defense should not be required to have a trigger lock on it so if a law requiring trigger locks were to be passed, such a gun should be excluded.
While I don't see a reason for 30 round clips (other than they're fun to empty) I am not prepared to ban them like in the Clinton days. Someone may have a legitimate use for them.
I agree with making purchases at gun shows and internet purchases ... absolutely background check those ... and I would argue that most do. I disagree when it comes to private sales and would argue that transfers of this type are much more common mooing friends and family than someone selling to a criminal.
I definitely have no problems with this and would hope that all states do it.
Disagree.
All I can say here is that is an awful lot of requirement and added expense for something that is considered by most folks to be a fundamental right guaranteed by the constitution. I would have to disagree here too.
I am trying very hard not to say something smart aleky about the bolded above. I will just say that this needs to be done with alcohol much more than with guns, IMO.



Vehemently disagree. What are the fees up to by now on gun purchases in this post. Truly trying to price them out of the common man's range. Gun control (extinction) by regulation. I would argue that we should charge such a fee on alcohol, and where legalized, marijuana .... That is if we're gonna do it for guns.



Again I would argue that with statements like the above you expose yourself as desiring to have guns gone, thus you do agree with Topper's post I referenced.



I'll not call you a fascist. I'll just call you an American with whom I disagree on the topic of guns.

I really like your response lr, well stated. I give tk respect for her response as she at least outlined her beliefs and what she would like seen done. Like you lr, I disagree with her. I've said before I'm not a gun person. I don't (nor have I ever) owned a gun. I've shot one once. Guns aren't my thing. One thing I don't like about guns is instead of fighting (like the 'old' days) people turn to guns to solve disputes.

That being said as you stated guns are a constitutional right. And as we are seeing in Oakland the police are not capable of keeping the citizens safe. I cannot fault a person who wants to have a gun in his home to keep his family safe. Nor do I believe there should laws that require an individual several minutes to put their gun together in their home when they might not have several minutes if their family is in danger.

I'm sure some of the 'anti-gun' group would like to see guns banned even if they don't come outright and say it. Others just want (much) tougher laws that I agree penalize legal law abiding gun owners more than anyone else.

Guns are owned by humans and unfortunately humans do really dumb things that are impossible to regulate away. As a gun 'supporter' I don't like seeing it anymore than anyone else.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Since you frown upon drunk drivers, are you then for requiring all cars to be equipped with lock out devices, to avoid the possibility of a drunk stealing/borrowing/using a car to drive drunk?
Are you also in favor of limiting how fast cars can go; seeing as how there's really no need for a car to go 125 mph?

Looks like Tekky has no real complaint and just wants to make it difficult on a particular segment of society.

 

[Anti-Party]

If we could limit guns the way the UK has, yes, that would certainly greatly reduce gun deaths.

However, as Beefy said, we have too many guns to go that route.

So, as anti-party said, we need educated gun owners who know how to store guns safely, who don't pull them out to shoot a puppy, who don't leave them loaded near kids.

BUT - since many Americans seem to be morons - we can use laws and technology to help. Trigger locks would keep kids from shooting guns accidentally. Limiting the number of rounds in a magazine and not allowing detachable magazines would limit the number of people shot. FULL BACKGROUND CHECKS - at gun shows, on the internet, when buying from someone who isn't a dealer - would help. What California is doing - if someone commits an offense that makes them ineligible to own guns, California is going to get those guns from them - would help. Limiting number of guns purchased per month across the country, so that someone doesn't buy a lot of guns in one state and ship them to another to sell on the streets.

To also help with the stupidity may require "REAL" gun training classes; not just pro forma ones, but serious classes that people take before they can get a gun. They should also be able to prove they can get somewhere near a target in their shooting accuracy. And yes, we should subsidize the fees for low income people. And then an educational publicity campaign, to tell people how to handle guns safely and to discourage people from even getting them.

And to help with the aftermath - a fee on every gun purchased that goes to a medical fund to pay for the people who are shot by guns.

Would any of this have stopped the guy in the op? hard to say. If we had a culture that frowned upon guns the way we frown upon cigarettes and driving while drunk maybe he wouldn't have pulled out his gun around kids. Advertising worked with those; we need to do the same for guns.

Now I'll sit back and wait for the predictable accusations of being a fascist or whatever.

I've always agreed with education, even if the education is forced. The Right Wing likes to expose the Black gun violence and the Left Wing likes to expose the White gun violence. What is left is one party ready to think about a proposal and one party screaming "slippery slope" and any proposal will lead to the end of all gun ownership.

To this, I ask; We banned the ability to own an armed tank in our Country because of the high casualty/massacre risk. Was it a slippery slope?

 

[Anti-Party]

The bolded above is just plain wrong. Slippery slope was born from regular gun owners who were/are alert to what is happening and is legitimate. All one has to do is look at the history of gun laws in this country. Weapons have been banned based on nothing other than their looks ... that was stemmed from previous bans of fully automatic weapons. Then you just have to look at places like England, Australia and the like. What do you have to do to own a gun in those countries? Give them an inch and they'll take a mile. If you can't see that you are blind.

Reagan and Clinton backed the ban of Assault weapons. Today, Bush allowed Assault Weapons and we are talking about ending background checks and laws pertaining to machine guns. Pretty sure your "Slippery slope" policy is only happening on your side. The former NRA never backed this kind of behavior and long term chairmen are leaving because of the Corporate sellout.

 

[Anti-Party]

LeaningRight, while obviously there are things we disagree on around guns, I appreciate your civilized dialog and your willingness to not disagree with some of the things I suggested.

Yes, I would like to have guns gone. And as the number of households owning guns has decreased, maybe we are moving more in that direction. And yes, I would encourage people to not own them - or, if they own them, to own them responsibly just like we ask them to drink responsibly if they are going to drink. That's my opinion; but of course, with our constitution, we can't just ban them.

So mainly I'm just commenting again to say thank you for not just insulting those of us who feel differently on this issue.

Most Left Wingers don't say they want to ban guns. You are only the 3rd person I've ever chatted with/known to state they want guns banned.

I think as a responsible gun owner I fear that the idiots that don't know the power and the responsibility behind a gun might eventually cause more and more people to have your perspective. My guns are for feeding my family, protecting my family and a side of fun. I teach my children early the possible dangers of these weapons and they know they should not touch them. Because I believe in problem prevention. I've met many Right Wingers on forums that buy their kids guns and keep loaded guns around the house stating that "if they touch them, they will get a spanking" Pretty sure a spanking isn't problem prevention when kids shoot their brothers/sisters.

Problem prevention vs. Problem solving.

 

[leaningright]

Reagan and Clinton backed the ban of Assault weapons. Today, Bush allowed Assault Weapons and we are talking about ending background checks and laws pertaining to machine guns. Pretty sure your "Slippery slope" policy is only happening on your side. The former NRA never backed this kind of behavior and long term chairmen are leaving because of the Corporate sellout.

You keep referring to people leaving the NRA and about them losing membership (previous post in this thread, I believe), but here's another thing. While I recognize that people leave organizations because of a change of mind or a change of direction of an organization's policies, the NRA's membership is growing.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/05/04/nra-meeting-lapierre-membership/2135063/

And one more thing in one word - Colorado

You and I probably support some of the same things....I'm not some far out right winger and you're probably not some far out liberal. But the gun issue is a losing issue, at least nationwide, for the Democratic Party ... Or any party.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

First, tell me what a gun was made to do. Then tell me what a bathtub was made to do.

A gun was made to fire bullets. A bathtub to clean oneself in. But both, if used improperly or irresponsibly can lead to death.

I believe in keeping guns but morons that make strawman arguments like this one just make it worse. Comparing guns to hammers or bathtubs is fighting in the wrong direction.

It is not a straw man. It is an analogy. If you are going to use words, try to know what they mean first.

It is not fighting in the wrong direction. It is showing how patently absurd it is to pretend that the irresponsible use of an item by a tiny percent of those that own one should lead to more government regulations.

Clearly, a background check probably would have came in handy here. It's why there are so many veterans today not able to own a gun which the Right uses as dramatic leverage "Oh, they fought for our Country now they can't have guns!" It's called PTSD and it's dangerous. Sometimes it might have you shooting near families aiming at dogs. Not a responsible gun owner.

Yes, it can be dangerous. Just as an over stressed person via work/family life etc... can be dangerous.

Step1) Understand the level of danger a gun has. Stop comparing guns to things that weren't specifically designed to kill.

I understand completely the dangers of a gun if used improperly. A gun CAN kill, but you need to stop pretending that it is all it can be used for.

Step2) Stop trying to paint these crazy criminals as responsible gun owners. You all justify everything now days.

No one is pretending these incidents involve responsible gun owners. That is the point. A small percentage are going to be irresponsible, which can be said about just about anything. The argument we are making is that creating more regulations will not lead to an elimination of irresponsible behavior. By the way... the above Step 2 is an actual straw man.

Step3) Attempt to do something to keep guns out of the hands of people that would be a risk owning one. You morons keep screaming that people with a violent criminal background have the right to bear arms because of the 2A. And that is where you lose common sense.

There is another straw man. Unless you care to show us where anyone is advocating violent criminals (aka... felons) have a right to bear arms. Which by the way... is currently illegal.