|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/15/2007 02:09:01 PM · #126 |
Thank god they had the ability to defend themselves.
-------
The Daily Courier, Prescott, AZ, 6/13/99
State: AZ
Ranch hand Javier Garcia had reportedly been "acting weird" after returning from a week-long vacation from his job at the K4 Ranch near Prescott, Arizona. Ranch owner Linda Kieckhefer and her father, Chuck Sheppard, would soon find out just how far askew Garcia's mind had gone. As the pair made their way from the main house to the barn one Friday evening, Garcia burst out of his quarters brandishing a large knife. In the ensuing attack, Kieckhefer and Sheppard both suffered serious cuts; but when the blade broke, Garcia retreated to re-arm himself. John Kieckhefer, Linda's husband, then attempted to prevent a second attack with a 20-ga. shotgun, but missed and also was stabbed. Finally, another ranch hand's wife passed Sheppard a .357 Mag. handgun, which he fired at Garcia. Two bullets found their mark and gave Sheppard time to retreat into the ranch house. Garcia continued his rampage still attempting to get at his victims before finally collapsing in death. "You tell them, by God, I shot that S.O.B., and I'd do it again," said the 82-year-old Sheppard after defending his daughter's life and ending the vicious attack.
Arizona Daily Star, Tucson, AZ, 07/15/02
State: AZ
A 22-year-old Tucson, Ariz., woman successfully fended off an intruder who jumped her as she lay sleeping in her bed. Her attacker, a convicted sex offender, had forced open a window at around 5 a.m. The woman told police that after he entered the bedroom and attacked her, she was able to grab a .38-cal. revolver she keeps under the bed and fire a shot near his head. The man fled and was later found by police in a nearby home.
Payson Roundup, Payson, AZ, 07/01/03
State: AZ
When a man came to his door asking to use a phone, an elderly Beaver Valley, Ariz., resident did not expect what would happen next. The visit suddenly turned deadly when the man pulled a knife on homeowner Ray Freisen, demanded his wallet and car keys and then tied him to a chair. Freisen was able to free himself and retrieve his gun, but not before the intruder stabbed Freisen's wife. In defense of his wife, Freisen shot the home invader several times, killing him. By the time medical personnel arrived, Annie, Freisen's wife of 53 years, had also died from her wounds.
The Times, Washington, DC, 12/14/94
State: DC
Rebecca Griffin awoke to the screams of her daughter, who was being bound and gagged by two kidnappers in her Washington, D.C., home. She confronted the men, one of whom was carrying a knife, and brought the attack to a quick halt when she was able to break free and retrieve a .32-cal. revolver from the basement, shooting the knife-wielder four times. The other suspect fled. Griffin and one daughter were slashed during the attack. Some news accounts made no mention that the handgun that saved the Griffins is illegal in the District.
New York Post, New York, NY, 09/09/06
State: ny
When a Harlem thug saw Margaret Johnson, a grandmother who has been confined to a wheelchair since a 2001 injury, he thought he had an easy target. The friendly Johnson said hello to the man, but according to police, he responded by grabbing her around the neck in an attempt to steal her necklace. But he had underestimated Johnson, an NRA member and accomplished target shooter who was on her way to the gun range. She reached for her registered pistol and shot her assailant, sending him running. "There's not much to it. Somebody tried to mug me and I shot him," said Johnson. "It was very scary." Police caught up with Johnson's assailant half a block away.
Johnstown Tribune-Democrat, Johnstown, PA ; 7/4/99
State: PA
Bartender Shannon Allen had no way of knowing that cutting off a patron at her workplace, E-Jay's Tavern in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, would lead to a deadly confrontation. After bouncers ejected Scott Kniss from the bar, he returned minutes later bent on revenge and armed with a handgun and a rifle. Firing 35 shots some of which seriously injured Allen into the roomful of patrons, Kniss was finally halted when bar owner Mike Jaber shot him twice with a .45-cal. handgun. "I was forced to act in self-defense to protect myself, my employees and my patrons," said Jaber following the traumatic incident.
---------
And there are many, many more stories just like this all over the US. Being able to defend yourself IMO is very important. I am so glad that my girl knows how to properly use a handgun and if needed could defend herself in a life threatening situation.
Message edited by author 2007-03-15 14:15:23. |
|
|
|
03/15/2007 06:33:20 PM · #127 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
I support the education & instruction in gun ownership. |
This was my only significant point to contribute. The rest of my post was really intended to clarify some errant thinking (gun ownership and the Nazi rise to power was an ill-conceived point and the militia argument is substantially irrelevant in the context of a modern democracy with a professional army, especially when the real threat is a suversion of social morality, not an armed confrontation).
I don't feel strongly about it - as a liberal, I don't particularly like governmental interference in private matters and think that the UK prohibition on handguns (when properly authorised and regulated for use in private) was and remains reactionary, ineffective and overkill. Personally, as I said, I enjoy shooting as a sport (though I am glad that there is no need for me to carry a gun on the street - thanks to all those CCTV cameras (thank Flash!)).
Originally posted by theSaj:
Most of the liberties people see endangered have been so since 1933 when FDR had the Trading With the Enemy Act modified. They just periodically re-iterate such power. And in truth, I am less concerned by the Patriot Act than I am with the removal of shoes and banning of liquids at airports. To me, I see nothing wrong with monitoring a phone call of someone speaking with an Al-Quaeda member or supporter. But the banning of liquids and removal of shoes is stupid. And when restrictions are done stupidly and without cause then I get more concerned. |
Thi is a bit odd - the banning of liquids was due to a direct and immediate threat, and a shortcoming of scanning equipment. It probably saved a half dozen planes from going down. Inconvenient - yes, but apparently quite necessary. On the other hand, the erosion of centuries old fundamental rights in the face of some general, vague and unsubstantiated threat. And you would rather give up your fundamental rights than suffer a temporary incovenience. Strange priorities.
Originally posted by theSaj:
Yes, the famous Gitmo, Geneva Convention, etc argument.
|
Not at all - I am pointing out the irony that you are arming yourself because you fear that your relationship with the state will deteriorate, claim that we should be taking steps to protect those rights, yet support the state riding roughshod over possibly the oldest of rights in UK/US law, established to regulate the relationship between the state and its civilians (habeas corpus) in this example. The only difference as far as I can see is that you support the denial of basic human rights to other people, but demand their fullest respect for yourself. Whatever happened to "Do unto others..."?
|
|
|
|
03/15/2007 06:45:09 PM · #128 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
I don't know (happy to be corrected), but isn't the call for greater regulation and gun control, rather than to ban gun ownership? I think that you yourself highlighted the importance of responsible ownership - doesn't that mean that you also agree with some additional controls (though you may disagree on their extent)? |
No, absolutely not. If we give them an inch, they will most definitely take a mile. Less idiocy in people would be the true, ultimate answer. I don't see how the government takes something plain and simple such as the right to own, keep and bear arms and twists it into a jumbled mess of what guns you're allowed to own, where you're allowed to carry them, how many you are allowed to own, and how many rounds you are allowed to have in them.
There is no doubt that if our forefathers knew how horrible our government would get, they would have instead written it as the unrestricted and unregulated right to own keep and bear arms. There was no way for them to tell how serious things would get. Hell, by today's standards and legal jargon, the constitution would be a thousand pages long. Just look at something as simple as the agreement you electronically sign when you register at this site, or the agreement when you install a new piece of software. Things are out of hand. Our rights, we need to protect.
Always remember...an armed society is a polite society.
|
|
|
|
03/15/2007 09:45:33 PM · #129 |
Originally posted by deapee:
Less idiocy in people would be the true, ultimate answer. |
It seems that one answer is to allow only non-idiots to own guns. Is your only argument against this that this is the start of a slippery slope towards complete regulation/prohibition? That seems a little weak.
|
|
|
|
03/15/2007 09:50:48 PM · #130 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by deapee:
Less idiocy in people would be the true, ultimate answer. |
Is your only argument against this that this is the start of a slippery slope towards complete regulation/prohibition? |
No, that is not my only argument against this. I'm sure I have made another point somewhere in one of my posts in this thread. Have you tried reading those?
|
|
|
|
03/15/2007 10:11:09 PM · #131 |
Originally posted by deapee:
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by deapee:
Less idiocy in people would be the true, ultimate answer. |
Is your only argument against this that this is the start of a slippery slope towards complete regulation/prohibition? |
No, that is not my only argument against this. I'm sure I have made another point somewhere in one of my posts in this thread. Have you tried reading those? |
I am sometimes at a loss as to how to deal with your rudeness. I suppose that it requires less effort simply to ignore it, but please don't think that it goes unfelt or has any positive effect.
Your other arguments seem to be in relation to whether gun ownership is a positive thing or not. I was asking for your objections to restricting ownership to people who are demonstrably not idiots (ie preventing the weapons-uneducated and unstable from owning guns).
If it helps you identify "sides", I am a semi-regular shooter, was a regular target shooter a few years ago, and have campaigned against handgun restriction in the UK. I enjoy using guns responsibly - I am not merely nay-saying you.
Message edited by author 2007-03-15 22:12:30.
|
|
|
|
03/15/2007 10:30:11 PM · #132 |
Originally posted by deapee:
No, absolutely not. If we give them an inch, they will most definitely take a mile. |
Man, you really are the NRA's personal hand puppet, aren't you? Statements like that are the rhetoric of lobbyists and neocons.
|
|
|
|
03/15/2007 10:42:13 PM · #133 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by deapee:
No, absolutely not. If we give them an inch, they will most definitely take a mile. |
Man, you really are the NRA's personal hand puppet, aren't you? Statements like that are the rhetoric of lobbyists and neocons. |
Sorry, Matthew, as you can see...it's hard to distinguish between those who are with you and those who are against you.
To be honest, I wasn't trying to be rude...I was honestly wondering if you had read my other posts or only my last one. When I first typed the message, I typed "How about you go back and read those first" -- but I thought that sounded too 'harsh' so I changed it to the simple question "Have you tried reading those"...
I thought that would come across much 'softer'
--
But in either event...I dont think that gun ownership should be restricted, regulated, or banned in any way, except maybe convicted violent criminals with a record or sex offenders. Unfortunately, yes you're going to get some idiots in the process that own firearms and they're going to do stupid things. But the fact of the matter remains that these stupid people will do stupid things with or without their handguns. If they can't shoot the guy behind the counter for his cash register, they'll stab him or bash him over the head.
I mean in reality, I wouldn't mind seeing people more educated...people should *want* to go take a NRA class or two before purchasing or handling a firearm. Unfortunately a lot of people think that's not necessary. I'm not sure why, but they do. I don't think that means that they need to restrict the maximum legal capacity of magazines or anything along those lines. Maybe people need to be better educated, maybe they could make it mandatory that people take certain classes before being allowed to apply for a permit to carry a firearm...and I suppose I'm contradicting myself by saying that...but it's the truth.
|
|
|
|
03/16/2007 11:36:16 AM · #134 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Man, you really are the NRA's personal hand puppet, aren't you? Statements like that are the rhetoric of lobbyists and neocons. |
Dr. - with all respect intended, please note that the NRA (National Rifle Association) does a tremendous job in education and training. Their Eddie the eagle program has been recognized as having specifically saved numerous lives of children by teaching them the proper actions when one of their playmates has a firearm. They advocate leaving the area immediately, emphasize the "DO NOT HANDLE" the firearm, and informing a parent or grown up. Children educated by this program and its many volunteers do a service. Furthermore, NRA sanctioned marksmen have been called upon to train our military in various aspects of riflemanship.
Although I understand the passion that some bring to this argument, it is wise in my opinion, to not paint too wide a brush stoke. I personally believe that if you do not want to own a firearm, then you should not have one. However, you not wanting to own one should not impede my interests.
|
|
|
|
03/16/2007 06:04:06 PM · #135 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Furthermore, NRA sanctioned marksmen have been called upon to train our military in various aspects of riflemanship. |
Not to mention SWAT teams (trained by and many are members).
|
|
|
|
03/18/2007 12:46:53 PM · #136 |
It seems like our Constitution has been so effective that we are beginning to forget the circumstances under which it was formed. I get the sense that there is a false sense of security and trust for the government surrounding support of gun control. The premise being that âGun regulation will protect us from gun violenceâ. In order for this to be true we must have unconditional trust in our leadership to enforce these regulations without abusing them.
Pandoraâs Box is already open. Imagine what would happen if this country outlawed guns. There are enough illegal guns on the streets to arm the criminals for a very long time. Long enough for them to steal more from those of us who would secretly keep ours for protection. Itâs a fallacy to think that legislation could protect us from this. If there is an effective plan for keeping illegal guns from flowing over our borders, perhaps we should focus on first using it to stop illegal drugs and aliens.
My leanings were much more liberal until I saw how easy it is for the leadership to polarize the populace and systematically strip away our Constitutional rights. Why is it so hard to fathom the thought that tyranny is possible in our country? We are spoon-fed select information by the media, and kept so busy trying to raise families and make a living that most of us have little time to investigate the truth about how this country really works. If we did pay more attention, we might realize that door to the henhouse is wide open and the fox may already be inside. If you think Iâm a crazy conspiracy theorist; answer this question. âWhat if someone like Hitler emerged in our political system, and was so charismatic and articulate that we didnât recognize it until it was too late? Could we really do anything to stop it?â With the rampant corruption and incompetence in our political system, why is this so hard to imagine?
Sadly, I think the 2nd Amendment is useless to protect us from our own government. ADS technology could easily squelch any sort of armed revolt by cooking us from the inside out. Iâd also like to remind everyone that our country was founded by people who would be considered âterroristsâ by todayâs standards. Our current system is poised to prevent the very type of uprising by which this country was created. Everything is now in place to round us up and place us in the internment camps, should we need to rise up. Despite my fears that we are helpless to protect ourselves from a tyrant, I would die trying and would prefer to do this with a gun in my hand.
I would like to add that anyone who really cares about our Constitutional Rights should seriously consider Ron Paul for president.
From his weekly column "Texas Straight Talk"
"Today, gun control makes people demonstrably less safe-- as any honest examination of criminal statistics reveals. In his book "More Guns, Less Crime," scholar John Lott demolishes the myth that gun control reduces crime. On the contrary, Lott shows that cities with strict gun control--like Washington DC--experience higher rates of murder and violent crime. It is no coincidence that violent crime flourishes in the nation's capital, where the individual's right to defend himself has been most severely curtailed.
Understand that residents of DC can be convicted of a felony and put in prison simply for having a gun in their home, even if they live in a very dangerous neighborhood. The DC gun ban is no joke, and the legal challenges to the ban are not simply academic exercises. People's lives and safety are at stake.
Gun control historically serves as a gateway to tyranny. Tyrants from Hitler to Mao to Stalin have sought to disarm their own citizens, for the simple reason that unarmed people are easier to control. Our Founders, having just expelled the British army, knew that the right to bear arms serves as the guardian of every other right. This is the principle so often ignored by both sides in the gun control debate. Only armed citizens can resist tyrannical government."
Sorry for such a long post. You should have seen it before I edited;) |
|
|
|
03/18/2007 11:11:37 PM · #137 |
Good post. Heck imagine if all of the US followed Florida's lead with their 'stand your ground' law. For those who do not know, basically in most states, if attacked you must try to run away before you can use deadly force, but in Florida, you don't have to run...instead, you shoot. I can guarantee crime would go down.
|
|
|
|
03/19/2007 09:22:17 AM · #138 |
Originally posted by deapee:
... Heck imagine if all of the US followed Florida's lead with their 'stand your ground' law. For those who do not know, basically in most states, if attacked you must try to run away before you can use deadly force, but in Florida, you don't have to run...instead, you shoot. I can guarantee crime would go down. |
Just for clarification; although the "stand your ground" law (aka Castle Doctrine) does permit some lattitude regarding one's requirement to "flee" as opposed to "standing one's ground", it is still judiciously wise to evade a confrontation. The appearance of which could help you, when witnesses agree on your intent to avoid any escalation.
The specific particulars of the "castle doctrine" came from Old English Law that stated that one did not have to flee one's own dwelling (castle)in order to mount a defense against an assailant. This concept was embraced by the Florida Legislature whereby a person under attack (and within the guidelines of justifiable use of force law) was not required to retreat in order to protect one's family or property (ie vehicle). However, it may still be a wiser choice in any given circumstance to not engage - but that is why we have training. Preferably documented training from organizations like Massad Ayoob's LFI.
|
|
|
|
03/19/2007 11:29:09 AM · #139 |
| Gun control's not the solution to reducing crime, it doesn't have the desired effect. However, legalized abortion does reduce crime. |
|
|
|
03/19/2007 03:44:50 PM · #140 |
Here is an example of trained officers getting caught up in the politics of their actions. Anyone, choosing to be armed in public, should consider this possibility for any action they might take. Regardless of the "factual" circumstances surrounding your actions, a prosecution can occurr for many reasons - some criminal, some civil, and most of all some political.
Preparedness does not stop at the decision to be armed. It entails a varied strategy, with training at its core.
For more real life events surrounding actions of those who choose to be armed, I would recomend reading "In The Gravest Extreme" by Massad Ayoob. A Yahoo or Google search would bring up the ISBN #.
In The Gravest Extreme
Message edited by author 2007-03-19 15:47:49.
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/07/2025 03:44:57 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/07/2025 03:44:57 PM EDT.
|
