Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumTwo CCW Holders Kill One Another
Earlier this year, Florida concealed handgun permit holder Robert G.Webster and his wife were returning home from a visit to the doctor when he got into a confrontation with neighbor and fellow concealed handgun permit holder Charles E. Ingram, 57. According to witnesses, as the argument escalated Webster, 63, walked out of his yard with a handgun at his side and then raised it. Ingram, who had also left his yard, standing in the sidewalk and street, raised his handgun as Webster approached. Both men fired at approximately the same time. Webster died at the scene. Ingram died less than a month later from wounds inflicted by Webster. Detectives investigating the shooting concluded that both men might have faced criminal charges had they lived.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-sugarmann/rude-awakening-two-ccw-ho_b_700774.html
ileus
(15,396 posts)upside is they were pretty old and their useful lifespans were behind them...
wonder what the whole story was?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I passed both those ages several years ago sonny and my life is still quite useful, thank you very much. Good luck with that attitude.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Is that what it's come to? You have to dig up articles that were discussed years ago as though they're relevant today?
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)I must have missed it.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)So.. what is it about this 18 month old story that you'd like to discuss?
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)X_Digger
(18,585 posts)SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)I think there's a good chance that either one or both of these men would still be alive.
Don't you agree?
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Any other tautological balderdash you want to throw out there?
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)We're only discussing this incident.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Charles could have ran over Robert.. They could have both tripped over a garden hose and fell on a rake..
Or maybe they would have just shook hands and had a beer, right?
Any other 'what-if's you'd like to discuss?
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)X_Digger
(18,585 posts)They could have beat the crap out of each other and had heart attacks.
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)It's entirely reasonable to say that the odds are that both or one of these men would still be alive if they had not been armed with guns.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)If Robert hadn't squeezed through that yellow light, he might never have confronted Charles.
That's it, make yellow lights shorter!
Change any one thing and the outcome might have been different.
What's your solution? Oh right, *poof* no guns.
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)How do we keep hotheads like these guys from carrying guns in public?
I'm not saying they shouldn't be able to keep a gun for home defense, but either these two should not have been carrying in public at all or should have been given stricter training in proper use of CCWs.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)There's no due process to be adjudicated 'a hot head', nor should there be. Unless and until someone does something that crosses the line, we can't infringe on their rights.
Nor would training have likely prevented it. (If training could fix things like this, then we wouldn't have the BART shooting, the seattle cop shooting the hearing impaired guy, etc.)
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)is not an infringement of the rights to gun ownership.
I think there is a push from the far right to extend 2nd amendment rights to include freedom to carry in public. The majority of Democrats support reasonable gun regulation and restrictions on public carry.
Incidents like this raise the reasonable question - Should everyone be allowed to carry a gun in public?
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Then why has 'shall issue' concealed carry spread, even in states with Democratic-controlled legislatures?!?
The second amendment does protect 'bear' as well as 'keep'- both are part of the right protected.
Just as Justice Ginsburg said..
Muscarello v US, 524 U. S. 125 (1998) -
[div class='excerpt']surely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitutions Second Amendment indicates: wear, bear, or carry
upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose
of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.
eta: hit post too soon..
Who has advocated the postion that 'everyone should be allowed to carry a gun in public'? That's not the position of any poster that I'm familiar with.
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)Concealed carry has spread due to backing of NRA dollars and push from other right wing groups.
You just echoed the push from the right to extend the meaning of 'bear' to mean freedom to carry in public.
These are right wing views, not shared by many Democrats.
Okay, if you agree that everyone should not be allowed to carry a gun in public, then who shouldn't be allowed to carry?
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)that's liberal with a small "L" meaning maximum freedom possible, not the political Liberal to which you wrongly implied.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Is there a reason why it wouldn't be?
Response to SecularMotion (Reply #37)
pipoman This message was self-deleted by its author.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)And more and more democrats are coming to the same position. See the latest gallup guns poll.
'keep' = own, 'bear' = carry -- are you disputing Justice Ginsburg's position? Kinda hard to peg her as 'far right'.
[div class='excerpt']Okay, if you agree that everyone should not be allowed to carry a gun in public, then who shouldn't be allowed to carry?
Generally, the characteristics outlined in the '68 GCA + amendments- those adjudicated mentally incompetent, felons and those under indictment for a felony, those with a protective order against them, those convicted of domestic violence, fugitive from justice, etc.
rl6214
(8,142 posts)How is it that 4.5 million people are able to get the financial backing to get all of the pro gun carry laws passed? Someone must be backing it besides the right wing backed NRA.
burf
(1,164 posts)we were just told on a different thread that the NRA was no longer relevant.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,475 posts)...this as a "far right view"?
Is that because some righties share this view? So what makes you a lefty? Do you have beliefs or are you just against anything righty thinks?
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)What do you think "...keep and bear..." means?
Perhaps "recover" or "reclaim" was the word you were looking for?
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)just pointing out that the terms you are using are NRA/Right wing framing.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)free for use by all.
No-one gets to claim jurisdiction on vocabulary, and if you claim otherwise, your argument... needs improvement.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,475 posts)I think it's important to accept when the other party has embraced a correct ideology. Further, it's just dishonest to disparage the opinion of an INDIVIDUAL for not following his party's directives.
There are plenty of examples of common ground between Ds and Rs. Manufacturing a difference is just divisive and hampers progress.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Maybe the Democratic PARTY agrees, but as for most Dems and Americans agreeing, I would need to see the data for that. I think you have it backwards, but thats MY opinion.
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)"Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) has also proposed legislation, backed by Bloomberg, making it illegal to bring a gun within 1,000 feet of a government official. The latest Mayors Against Illegal Guns poll found that 58 percent of the public and 49 percent of gun owners support banning the sale of high-capacity ammunition magazines. Sixty-seven percent of the public supports the King proposal, according to that polling, along with 60 percent of gun owners. "
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/18/poll-americans-gun-owners-stronger-laws_n_810069.html
Please show some data to support your opinion.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)done by the NRA? Same difference. Also, define "high capacity".
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)They moment they become so, we have lost the Republic.
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Which is to say not very much at all...
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)Poll: Utahns want gun-free school zone
SALT LAKE CITY -- Utahns don't want the gun-free zone around schools eliminated, a Deseret News/KSL poll found.
A bill before the Utah Legislature proposes to lift a 1,000 foot gun-free perimeter around schools. But a statewide survey by Dan Jones & Associates found 60 percent of Utahns oppose the move.
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=14387112
Straw Man
(6,622 posts)If you'll read the article, you'll notice that the altercation began with both men in their respective yards. They were not "in public." Are you suggesting that more training or a ban on public carry would have stopped these two yutzes at the property line like a PetSafe stopping an errant dog?
pipoman
(16,038 posts)You do realize this incident happened at both "victims" homes right? CCW or none, if "I'm not saying they shouldn't be able to keep a gun for home defense,..." how would this have been different? I'm not seeing that a CCW made any difference in this incident.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Last edited Sat Feb 18, 2012, 10:38 AM - Edit history (1)
this thread was pulled from the archives..
ObamaFTW2012
(253 posts)because everyone knows that people didn't kill each other over bullshit until the firearm was invented.
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)Do you think it is likely that both men would have died if there were no guns involved?
ObamaFTW2012
(253 posts)To answer your question, I would have to make a number of assumptions and then give you my opinion.
If they didn't have guns, would they have been armed? Would one or both be armed? What would each be armed with? Crossbow? knife? sword? spear? hatchet? hammer? broken beer bottle neck?
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)SteveW
(754 posts)If so, how extensive and in what form?
In any case, removal of the entire class of weapons they used would NOT ASSURE these men would still be alive; they could have used:
1) shotguns;
2) rifles;
3) muzzle-loaders (it did sound like a duel of sorts);
4) double-edged daggers
NOTE: banning handguns (if that were even possible) would probably result in citizens re-arming with either (1) or (2) above, both types several times more likely to kill someone than a handgun.
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts).....for the gun lobby.......
spin
(17,493 posts)used it in legitimate self defense and prevented tragedies.
Supporters of concealed carry never ague that all those who legally carry concealed are angels. We do point out that is rare to find cases where a person with a carry permit misused his firearm but they can and do happen.
Cops also occasionally misuse their firearms. What do you suggest we do about that?
rl6214
(8,142 posts)While neither was carrying concealed...which makes the fact that they both had CCL irrelevant.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I mean holy shit you found ONE. Good for you.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)ellisonz
(27,711 posts)...with only the minimum of standards. A de facto unregulated Militia is the best Militia.
SteveW
(754 posts)...you take what you can get on the calendar when the event is so rare as to approach obscurity.
E6-B
(153 posts)Looks to me like CCW is not much of a problem. 189 in 3 years is a statistical fluke. When you form public policy to deal with guns the statistics for CCW causing much of a social problem does not bear out.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)You're supposed to be going: OMG, Look At What Those Awful CCW Holders Have Been Doing!- instead of pointing out that
in any large group there's bound to be a few fools and/or criminals....
ileus
(15,396 posts)ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)Not that it's legal, but it used to be considered honorable in some places.
Never mind the ancient article, why is someone posting nonsense from Sugarmann?!?!?
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)ileus
(15,396 posts)SteveW
(754 posts)slackmaster
(60,567 posts)So what?
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)Nice.
Maybe people with bad tempers and poor anger management skills shouldn't have guns?
How would you feel if only one died and the one who lived lacked the anger management skills?
Still say 'so what?'
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)I suspect you'd care not a whit.
I'd also note that one does not need a psychological test to get a drivers' license or buy a car:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172822#post52
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)You don't know so don't tell me how you 'suspect' I would feel.
Cars are designed to transport people.
Guns are designed to kill.
No comparison.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Now, I know that many here might not buy a gun to kill, but there are a lot of folks who do just that.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)DonP
(6,185 posts)slackmaster
(60,567 posts)...prohibited from owning guns.
It's the responsibility of every free individual adult to make a good decision regarding his or her personal ownership of firearms.
How would you feel if only one died and the one who lived lacked the anger management skills?
What's your point?
SteveW
(754 posts)PavePusher
(15,374 posts)And the moderating is a good deal less draconian then here. People seem to have thicker skins.
montanto
(2,966 posts)Oh I see, earlier last year. No, I tell a lie, earlier a couple years ago. Anyway, not enough fresh murders these days i guess . . . so two cranky guys with bad blood between them squared off and each got exactly what he was after. What are we suggesting here? That we charge them post-mortem?
Remmah2
(3,291 posts)Damage minimized due to gun ownership.
rl6214
(8,142 posts)discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,475 posts)Common Sense Party
(14,139 posts)You don't want there to be rude toters with death spewers strapped to their bodies.
If all of the rude toters shoot each other, your problem will be solved. No more guns, right?
You must be delighted by this story.
Simo 1939_1940
(768 posts)pro-restrictionistas have.
Yawn.