Reader: It's time for Americans to de...

Reader: It's time for Americans to defend their country

There are 183 comments on the Sentinel & Enterprise story from Nov 13, 2007, titled Reader: It's time for Americans to defend their country. In it, Sentinel & Enterprise reports that:

It never fails to amaze me how arrogant our Congress has become and how out of touch with their constituents they really are.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Sentinel & Enterprise.

Hawk

Brooklyn, NY

#123 Dec 3, 2007
Cops found that mans guns laying up against the wall in the basement. So NO, lockups are/were NOT known and in place, as I said, that would be a start. You think we're going to solve this here on the board?

As for Education, I suggested it to be in terms of the effects and issues around Illegal guns, responsible Ownership, tack on the effects of the Ammo for results. The education is to ensure both the Parent and children are aware and responsible. How about we charge that parent with any lawbreaking that occurs with HIS Guns, you'll start finding ways to secure them then won't you?

I don't "put the onus on you/other", what I said is it occurs to me that you all know much more than I about Guns so, thought the ideas could come from you, where do you see the problems coming from? How do Guns get into the wrong hands is the question for you. I wish you were truly genuine in your discussions. You dismiss and try to point off the considerations.

I want to keep Guns out of the hands of Criminals. If you want to go further, I don't think anyone needs an AK47 of their own!

“Baise toi.”

Since: Nov 07

Amherst, NH

#124 Dec 3, 2007
Hawk wrote:
Cops found that mans guns laying up against the wall in the basement. So NO, lockups are/were NOT known and in place, as I said, that would be a start. You think we're going to solve this here on the board?
WHAT would be a start? The locks are already required by law. I don't see where you're headed with this one. What is your point? The guy was presumably supposed to secure his guns under Massachusetts law, and he failed to do so. So now the Commonwealth can prosecute him for this, among other things. What is missing here? What are you proposing?
As for Education, I suggested it to be in terms of the effects and issues around Illegal guns, responsible Ownership, tack on the effects of the Ammo for results. The education is to ensure both the Parent and children are aware and responsible. How about we charge that parent with any lawbreaking that occurs with HIS Guns, you'll start finding ways to secure them then won't you?
Sure, I'd support a law that criminalises providing or permitting access to guns to one's own children knowing that the child(ren) will subsequently use that gun in a violent crime. I suspect that's already against the law though - I don't think that's permitted by the law as it stands now.
I don't "put the onus on you/other", what I said is it occurs to me that you all know much more than I about Guns so, thought the ideas could come from you, where do you see the problems coming from?
Well, the problems don't stem from the guns themselves, so I don't see where knowledge of guns comes in. Guns haven't changed fundamentally in about 100 years. A centerfire rifle still works largely the same way it did back in 1896. Semi-automatic handguns still work the same way as they did in, oh, say, 1903. Revolvers like the Dan Wesson the kid took haven't changed much since shortly after the Civil War. Knowing about guns and how they work doesn't really offer much in the way of a solution to the problem as described in the article that spawned this discussion.
How do Guns get into the wrong hands is the question for you. I wish you were truly genuine in your discussions. You dismiss and try to point off the considerations.
By "the wrong hands" I assume you mean "the hands of violent criminals." You can guess how they get their guns as easily as I can - they steal them despite good-faith efforts to secure them, they purchase them legally before turning to crime, etc. For a solution to this one, I think we'd need a broader discussion re: the causes of crime & its solutions. Like you said, we're not going to solve that one here.
I want to keep Guns out of the hands of Criminals.
I think you'll find nearly universal agreement to that one.
If you want to go further, I don't think anyone needs an AK47 of their own!
Noted.
I hate this paper

Brookline, MA

#125 Dec 5, 2007
There have been no "Brady" quotes on any of my posts.
If all of your gun owner's were responisble, there would be no need for these articles. They're only proving my point.
Ah yes, school feild trips to the firing range. Might as well teach them how to shoot since they're not learning how to spell.
Hawk

Brooklyn, NY

#126 Dec 7, 2007
Hmmmmm, Omaha killer had an AK47, hmmmmm.
HerrBGone

Painted Post, NY

#127 Dec 7, 2007
Nope. It was an SKS semi-automatic, not a fully automatic Kalashnikov.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SKS

What’s more telling is that the mall this creep chose to shoot up was a “Gun Free Zone” which meant that all of this mutant’s law-abiding victims were defenseless. But don’t those signs by the door make you feeeeeeel safe?

Since: Oct 07

United States

#128 Dec 7, 2007
HerrBGone wrote:
Nope. It was an SKS semi-automatic, not a fully automatic Kalashnikov.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SKS
What’s more telling is that the mall this creep chose to shoot up was a “Gun Free Zone” which meant that all of this mutant’s law-abiding victims were defenseless. But don’t those signs by the door make you feeeeeeel safe?
Wow, instead of one lunatic firing off shots in a crowded mall, it could have been a full bore, old west style shoot out with multiple participants?

What an opportunity wasted.
HerrBGone

Painted Post, NY

#129 Dec 7, 2007
One law-abiding citizen puts down one mutant nut job mall shooter with a legally carried firearm. How many more innocents can the nut job kill? The law-abiding citizen isn’t gunning for glory like the nut job. He (or she) is desperately trying to save lives. In a situation like that shooting the perp is the last option anyone wants to deploy. But at least it should be an option. It beats the hell out of waiting defenselessly for your turn to die.

Remember: When you absolutely positively need help RIGHT NOW, with a cop on the phone help is only minutes away. And as I’ve said before, a creep like our latest mall shooter can make you very dead in a very few minutes.

Since: Oct 07

United States

#130 Dec 7, 2007
HerrBGone wrote:
One law-abiding citizen puts down one mutant nut job mall shooter with a legally carried firearm. How many more innocents can the nut job kill? The law-abiding citizen isn’t gunning for glory like the nut job. He (or she) is desperately trying to save lives. In a situation like that shooting the perp is the last option anyone wants to deploy. But at least it should be an option. It beats the hell out of waiting defenselessly for your turn to die.
Remember: When you absolutely positively need help RIGHT NOW, with a cop on the phone help is only minutes away. And as I’ve said before, a creep like our latest mall shooter can make you very dead in a very few minutes.
In a movie or in your daydream, sure. In real life things do not tend to work out to the best case scenario.

This was a mall. There are ALWAYS cops in malls. Always.

From the news stories it did not look like anyone just sat down and waited to be shot. There was a lot of running around and screaming and pandemonium. Not the kind of environment conductive to being able to squeeze off that perfect shot. In real life, your first 5 would miss your target and hit the innocent people running away from the first maniac.

I know. You're going to say "Not me, I'm the best shooter in my club".

You are not a target under fire when you are shooting at your club.
HerrBGone

Leominster, MA

#131 Dec 7, 2007
If as you insist there are "always cops in malls" then tell me how come so many people died? This creep was not stopped by a cop. He put himself out of our misery. Before the cops got there. You are welcome to farm out your personal safety to a government agency if you like. That is your choice to make. But don’t come crying to us if the cops don’t get there in time to save your bacon if you happen to have a front row seat at the next mall shooting. And trust me on this. As long as We the People put up with large public places being designated “Gun Free Zones” there will be more mall shootings. Because the creeps doing the shooting know that there is no one there who can shoot back.

Since: Oct 07

Leominster, MA

#132 Dec 7, 2007
HerrBGone wrote:
If as you insist there are "always cops in malls" then tell me how come so many people died? This creep was not stopped by a cop. He put himself out of our misery. Before the cops got there. You are welcome to farm out your personal safety to a government agency if you like. That is your choice to make. But don’t come crying to us if the cops don’t get there in time to save your bacon if you happen to have a front row seat at the next mall shooting. And trust me on this. As long as We the People put up with large public places being designated “Gun Free Zones” there will be more mall shootings. Because the creeps doing the shooting know that there is no one there who can shoot back.
...and you have the right to carry a firearm.

But if you think you can play Rambo and end up killing an innocent person in the process, or even a guilty person, depending on the circumstances, you will be spending some time in jail servicing various inmates as a rental unit and you will have no one else to blame but yourself.
HerrBGone

Leominster, MA

#133 Dec 7, 2007
HerrBGone

Leominster, MA

#134 Dec 7, 2007
One more link before I go to bed:

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.a...
HerrBGone

Leominster, MA

#135 Dec 7, 2007
There, then gone, then back again. Weird...
HerrBGone

Painted Post, NY

#136 Dec 10, 2007
So bbts, after reading this story at CNN.com do you still think that ordinary citizens should be disarmed in order to allow the criminals and madmen of the world free reign to kill as many innocents at they please until the police get there?

“A New Life parishioner acting as a security guard* shot and killed a gunman who entered the church Sunday afternoon after he had gotten no more than 50 feet inside the building, Boyd said.”

* After a fatal shooting at another church facility in which the killer remained at large, it seemed prudent to put measures in place to be able to defend the church if it should become necessary. The police were busy investigating the other shooting. There may not have been any available for a security detail at the church and there was likely no time to hire professional armed guards. So a parishioner with a concealed carry permit, not a hired armed guard, stepped into the breach to defend the lives of her fellow worshipers. The wisdom of that preparation became apparent when someone with a rifle and evil intent arrived at the church and began shooting people. The armed citizen parishioner shot and killed the mutant and saved possibly hundreds of lives.

As it was several people at the church died before the mutant could be put down. How many more innocents would have lost their lives if the congregation had to wait for the police to arrive for their salvation?

Given similar circumstances, what would you have done bbts? Hung more hastily made signs proclaiming the church a “Gun Free Zone”?

Here’s the link: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/10/colorado.sho...

Since: Oct 07

United States

#137 Dec 10, 2007
HerrBGone wrote:
So bbts, after reading this story at CNN.com do you still think that ordinary citizens should be disarmed in order to allow the criminals and madmen of the world free reign to kill as many innocents at they please until the police get there?
“A New Life parishioner acting as a security guard* shot and killed a gunman who entered the church Sunday afternoon after he had gotten no more than 50 feet inside the building, Boyd said.”
* After a fatal shooting at another church facility in which the killer remained at large, it seemed prudent to put measures in place to be able to defend the church if it should become necessary. The police were busy investigating the other shooting. There may not have been any available for a security detail at the church and there was likely no time to hire professional armed guards. So a parishioner with a concealed carry permit, not a hired armed guard, stepped into the breach to defend the lives of her fellow worshipers. The wisdom of that preparation became apparent when someone with a rifle and evil intent arrived at the church and began shooting people. The armed citizen parishioner shot and killed the mutant and saved possibly hundreds of lives.
As it was several people at the church died before the mutant could be put down. How many more innocents would have lost their lives if the congregation had to wait for the police to arrive for their salvation?
Given similar circumstances, what would you have done bbts? Hung more hastily made signs proclaiming the church a “Gun Free Zone”?
Here’s the link: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/10/colorado.sho...
I never asserted that ordinary citizens should be disarmed. I said that a crowded mall is no place for a shootout. I will go further and say that the owners of the mall have every right to declare it a "gun free" zone.

When the sign says "please check your guns at the bar", you can comply, or you can patronize another establishment.

Your choice.
Shannon

Fort Huachuca, AZ

#138 Dec 10, 2007
HerrBGone wrote:
So bbts, after reading this story at CNN.com do you still think that ordinary citizens should be disarmed in order to allow the criminals and madmen of the world free reign to kill as many innocents at they please until the police get there?
“A New Life parishioner acting as a security guard* shot and killed a gunman who entered the church Sunday afternoon after he had gotten no more than 50 feet inside the building, Boyd said.”
* After a fatal shooting at another church facility in which the killer remained at large, it seemed prudent to put measures in place to be able to defend the church if it should become necessary. The police were busy investigating the other shooting. There may not have been any available for a security detail at the church and there was likely no time to hire professional armed guards. So a parishioner with a concealed carry permit, not a hired armed guard, stepped into the breach to defend the lives of her fellow worshipers. The wisdom of that preparation became apparent when someone with a rifle and evil intent arrived at the church and began shooting people. The armed citizen parishioner shot and killed the mutant and saved possibly hundreds of lives.
As it was several people at the church died before the mutant could be put down. How many more innocents would have lost their lives if the congregation had to wait for the police to arrive for their salvation?
Given similar circumstances, what would you have done bbts? Hung more hastily made signs proclaiming the church a “Gun Free Zone”?
Here’s the link: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/10/colorado.sho...
I totally agree, I have a gun in my house for my protection and I am also an avid hunter. If someone was to break into my house and try to harm me or my kids you damn right that I would shoot the bastard in the leg or something to immobilize him.
HerrBGone

Painted Post, NY

#139 Dec 10, 2007
"... I said that a crowded mall is no place for a shootout...."

That's all well and good. But unless you are the nut job mall shooter, you don't get to pick and choose when or where the shootout's going to be. If some nut job decides to shoot the place up while you happen to be there, then that’s the situation you’re stuck with.

The fact is that the nut jobs pick places like malls and schools and churches because they are target rich environments with a very low probability that the people there are able and equipped to defend the place.

By contrast: When was the last time you heard of a gun show or NRA convention or some such chosen as the venue for a mass casualty event like a mall shooting? That’s just not going to happen because even the most whacked mall shooter isn’t likely to be stupid enough to think that he’d get off more than a couple of rounds before those present made him thoroughly unable to continue.

Another thing to consider is that these aren’t shootouts in the classic sense. They are mass-casualty events where some suicidal or otherwise insane nut job is seeking to “go out in a blaze of glory” and to take as many people with him as he can manage. A gang shootout or mob hit or whatever, even a classic Wild West duel (when was the last time you heard of one of those other than in a movie?), isn’t likely to happen where there are so many witnesses.

Since: Oct 07

United States

#140 Dec 10, 2007
HerrBGone wrote:
"... I said that a crowded mall is no place for a shootout...."
That's all well and good. But unless you are the nut job mall shooter, you don't get to pick and choose when or where the shootout's going to be. If some nut job decides to shoot the place up while you happen to be there, then that’s the situation you’re stuck with.
The fact is that the nut jobs pick places like malls and schools and churches because they are target rich environments with a very low probability that the people there are able and equipped to defend the place.
By contrast: When was the last time you heard of a gun show or NRA convention or some such chosen as the venue for a mass casualty event like a mall shooting? That’s just not going to happen because even the most whacked mall shooter isn’t likely to be stupid enough to think that he’d get off more than a couple of rounds before those present made him thoroughly unable to continue.
Another thing to consider is that these aren’t shootouts in the classic sense. They are mass-casualty events where some suicidal or otherwise insane nut job is seeking to “go out in a blaze of glory” and to take as many people with him as he can manage. A gang shootout or mob hit or whatever, even a classic Wild West duel (when was the last time you heard of one of those other than in a movie?), isn’t likely to happen where there are so many witnesses.
I was unaware that you were so well in tune with the thought processes of nut job mall shooters.

The DC Sniper, the college clock tower sniper, the ruby ridge racial segregation guy, the millennium bomber, the OK city fed building bomber, the disgruntled postal worker, the Waco 7th day adventist cult, the disgruntled technology worker, and thousands of estranged husbands and battered wives, along with countless kids just playing around, have taken the lives of others using firearms. They don't all seem to want to make their last stand at the mall.

As you can see, there is no actual correlation that leads one to believe that the behavior of a deranged murderer is as predictable as you assert.

Regardless, it is well within the rights of the owner of an establishment to require his property to be a gun free zone, and even in self defense, murder is a crime.
Eirikur

Harrisburg, PA

#141 Dec 10, 2007
bbts wrote..."even in self-defense, murder is a crime" That's just beautiful...let me say that if someone breaks into my house, I'm emptying my gun and he's leaving in a body bag. Dead men tell no tales..."yes, your honor...I was in fear for the safety of myself and my family, and everytime I shot him he moved...so I shot him again." You can choose to protect yourself or wait for the police...no waiting for me.

Since: Oct 07

Leominster, MA

#142 Dec 10, 2007
Eirikur wrote:
bbts wrote..."even in self-defense, murder is a crime" That's just beautiful...let me say that if someone breaks into my house, I'm emptying my gun and he's leaving in a body bag. Dead men tell no tales..."yes, your honor...I was in fear for the safety of myself and my family, and everytime I shot him he moved...so I shot him again." You can choose to protect yourself or wait for the police...no waiting for me.
Great! Go for it. Just as long as you don't live at the mall.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Fitchburg Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
I am told that Marcus DiNatale is running his m... 4 hr Cedar St Resident 11
discussing fitchburg now enabling people who th... 4 hr Bruce 9
Kevin Lynch 2017 8 hr Cedar St Resident 3
News Wong to DeLeo: City will take slots - Sentinel ... (Jul '10) 11 hr Twelve angry men 12
News Mayor says Fitchburg 'on the rise' 11 hr Fat Stevie 10
Lynch May Run Again 11 hr WOW 10
Fitchburgs corruption being exposed (Feb '16) Sun David Kevns sidekick 391

Fitchburg Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Fitchburg Mortgages