Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Shooting At Houston TX College  
User currently offlineitsjustme From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2808 posts, RR: 9
Posted (1 year 11 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2833 times:

Details sketchy but reports are at least one shooter and one victim thus far. 1350 ET.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/22...ported-at-texas-college/?hpt=hp_t1

86 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineitsjustme From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2808 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (1 year 11 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2809 times:

Four vics transported, one in critical condition. One person in custody. LE searching the campus for another suspect. Early speculation is it may be a "gang-related" incident.

User currently offlineflymia From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 7279 posts, RR: 6
Reply 2, posted (1 year 11 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2505 times:

If this didnt happen at a college and instead on a street corner, supermarket, home etc.. It wouldn't be news and only local Houston news would report it. Nothing to see here. It's like how after the Jet Blue emergency landing at LAX every minor emergency landing was shot live with helicopters for 3 months.

Anyway it will be nice when we can have a discussion about the actual reasons for the VIOLENCE instead of the tools being used. Inadequate education and lack of good role models are two of the biggest reasons in my opinion.



"It was just four of us on the flight deck, trying to do our job" (Captain Al Haynes)
User currently offlineTheCommodore From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 3014 posts, RR: 8
Reply 3, posted (1 year 11 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2500 times:

Quoting flymia (Reply 10):
Inadequate education and lack of good role models are two of the biggest reasons in my opinion.

Both of which you are struggling with in America, (as are many other countries too) so, until there is an intensive education campaign, some sort of compulsory mental health check, and better "roll models" in society, something has to happen don't you think ?

America cant go on being prepared to lose up to 900 lives a month    and be complacent with that can you ?



Flown 905,468 kms or 2.356 times to the moon, 1296 hrs, Longest flight 10,524 kms
User currently offlineitsjustme From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2808 posts, RR: 9
Reply 4, posted (1 year 11 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2489 times:

Quoting flymia (Reply 10):
If this didnt happen at a college and instead on a street corner, supermarket, home etc.. It wouldn't be news and only local Houston news would report it

Agreed. And doesn't that speak volumes about how callous we've become in the U.S. to shootings? Shootings with multiple victims, no less:
CNN Tip Line Operator: "CNN Tip Line, what are you reporting? What? Three people shot? And you say this didn't happen at a school, college, or university? OK, thank you but we're not interested".


User currently offlineYVRLTN From Canada, joined Oct 2006, 2548 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 11 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2476 times:

Oh great, another gun thread...

Oh great, another reason for another gun thread...

Meanwhile in NM, a teenager kills his whole family http://abcnews.go.com/US/mexico-teen...oot-walmart-cops/story?id=18284667

My opinion is unchanged. These poor kids clearly need help. Those around them need help / education identifying tell-tale signs. But this is going to take generations to fix.

Meanwhile, do not have a .22 rifle and other weapons easily accessible in a closet in a house full of kids!!! This is the sort of gun control that owners need to work on. That does not mean banning guns, but being responsible for them and if there are too many incidents where this is proven not to be the case, then maybe the government does have to step in to police you if you are unable to police yourselves. Like road blocks for DUI's or speed traps I guess.

Quoting itsjustme (Reply 1):
Early speculation is it may be a "gang-related" incident.

As to the incident in question, this is never going to go away if indeed gang related. Just seems bizarre to me that pulling out a gun is an OK way to resolve a dispute, but if criminals want to shoot each other, that is OK with me I guess as long as innocent bystanders are not affected, which unfortunately sometimes seems to be the case. Sadly no laws passed or restricting the law abiding can really change this, I have come to the conclusion that US society has made their bed and now they have to sleep in it.

There has been a concerning increase in gun violence in YVR in recent weeks - all gang related - but I sure hope this trend does not creep up here.



Follow me on twitter for YVR movements @vernonYVR
User currently offlineWilco737 From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 9118 posts, RR: 76
Reply 6, posted (1 year 11 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 2429 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Guys,

Stick to the topic, don't make it another gun thread and stop composing harsh and disrespecting posts!

If this behavior continues, gun threads will be banned completely in the future. Discuss the topic and nothing else and post in a civilized and respectful way. We won't tolerate this anymore.

Thanks.

wilco737
  



It it's not Boeing, I am not going.
User currently offlinetype-rated From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (1 year 11 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2366 times:

At this campus one would almost expect something like this to happen. Lots of gang bangers and poor minorities attend this school. So you mix a bunch of these that are 19-24 years old and look what happens.

I think a lot of this is cause by "failure to communicate" instead of arguing something out like we used to do years ago, kids these days just shoot each other. I don't think a lot of them realize that once you're dead, it's permanent.


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8967 posts, RR: 24
Reply 8, posted (1 year 11 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2356 times:

Quoting pvjin (Reply 2):

I wonder how many more of these will have to happen before gun nutters understand need for gun regulations.

Jumping to conclusions a bit fast, no? What regulation do you think would have prevented this incident?

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 5):
My opinion is unchanged. These poor kids clearly need help. Those around them need help / education identifying tell-tale signs. But this is going to take generations to fix.

Indoctrination already taking place.

5-year old girl suspended for 10 days for attacking fellow children with soap bubbles.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/21/us/pen...irl-suspended/index.html?hpt=us_c2

2 6-year olds suspended for pointing fingers at each other and saying 'bang'.

http://www.myeasternshoremd.com/news...6-5da5-11e2-a2a7-0019bb2963f4.html

So playing Cops and Robbers is now basically illegal.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineTheCommodore From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 3014 posts, RR: 8
Reply 9, posted (1 year 11 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2344 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 8):
What regulation do you think would have prevented this incident?

Basically anything really Dreadnaught.

The convoluted laws in different states, appears the be VERY complex and difficult to understand to say the least, and certainly open to "interpretation"

A universal law/s, covering the entire US would make life easier, not only for police and authorities, but also for gun owners too.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 8):
So playing Cops and Robbers is now basically illegal.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 8):
2 6-year olds suspended for pointing fingers at each other and saying 'bang'.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 8):
5-year old girl suspended for 10 days for attacking fellow children with soap bubbles.

Sad, the innocence of youth, but this is what it has turned into.



Flown 905,468 kms or 2.356 times to the moon, 1296 hrs, Longest flight 10,524 kms
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8967 posts, RR: 24
Reply 10, posted (1 year 11 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2338 times:

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 9):
Basically anything really Dreadnaught.

The convoluted laws in different states, appears the be VERY complex and difficult to understand to say the least, and certainly open to "interpretation"

A universal law/s, covering the entire US would make life easier, not only for police and authorities, but also for gun owners too.

Please be specific. Which one or two regulations would have prevented the incident? My comment was aimed at a post (since deleted) who immediately said that gun regulations would have prevented it. My question: Which one?

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 9):
Sad, the innocence of youth, but this is what it has turned into.

I presume you mean the Salem Witch Trial mentality of the school administrators.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineTheCommodore From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 3014 posts, RR: 8
Reply 11, posted (1 year 11 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2330 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 10):
My question: Which one?

I never said I had the specific answer to this problem, just stating, that along with others here, something in regards to more stringent regulation/s needs to happen in order to try and stop this from happening again don't you think ?

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 10):
I presume you mean the Salem Witch Trial mentality of the school administrators.

Not really. Just the paranoia that has now crept into the gun control debate, and how people live with guns in society.

This is a by product of the current situation, where people are no longer thinking rationally.

[Edited 2013-01-23 12:52:49]


Flown 905,468 kms or 2.356 times to the moon, 1296 hrs, Longest flight 10,524 kms
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8967 posts, RR: 24
Reply 12, posted (1 year 11 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2318 times:

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 11):
I never said I had the specific answer to this problem, just stating, that along with others here, something in regards to more stringent regulation/s needs to happen in order to try and stop this from happening again don't you think ?

Unless someone can come up with a rational regulation or law that would have stopped this event, I have to say no.

Already gun related laws and regulations - of which there are a huge number probably enough to fill several volumes, have not stopped anything - and I would guess that the bulk of them were probably passed in the aftermath of some tragedy.

Do not mistake demands for "action" and some random set of restrictions and regulations for anything that will actually help. It's politicians and special interest posing and electioneering.

Legislative masturbation, I call it.

If someone can propose a regulation, or a set of regulation, that we can say with a high degree of confidence that it would have prevented this event, or Sandy Hill, I would be more than happy to consider it. But throwing a few more regulations up just to show "action" - hell no.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12965 posts, RR: 25
Reply 13, posted (1 year 11 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2309 times:

Quoting flymia (Reply 2):
If this didnt happen at a college and instead on a street corner, supermarket, home etc.. It wouldn't be news and only local Houston news would report it.

And you find it strange that parents are more sensitized to issues relating to students?

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 12):
Unless someone can come up with a rational regulation or law that would have stopped this event, I have to say no.

Updated article:

Quote:

Late Tuesday night, authorities said 22-year-old Carlton Berry was a shooter. Berry, who remained hospitalized, has been charged with aggravated assault.

Ref: http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/22/justic.../texas-college-shooting/index.html

It might be helpful to be able to trace this gun's history to see if it could have been kept out of his hands, but NRA has been doing all it can to block such things.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 12):
Already gun related laws and regulations - of which there are a huge number probably enough to fill several volumes, have not stopped anything

In the US gun laws are lax, but not in Europe, where their gun murder rate is a pittance compared to ours, so this issue really is not the number of laws but the scope of the laws.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineTheCommodore From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 3014 posts, RR: 8
Reply 14, posted (1 year 11 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 2304 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 12):
I have to say no.

So I gather then, you are willing to put up with the status quo.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 12):
Already gun related laws and regulations - of which there are a huge number probably enough to fill several volumes, have not stopped anything - and I would guess that the bulk of them were probably passed in the aftermath of some tragedy.

No argument there.

As I said in (reply9) the present gun laws are too complex and vary to much between states (from what Ive read on previous gun threads) so the system needs to be simplified

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 12):
Do not mistake demands for "action" and some random set of restrictions and regulations for anything that will actually help. It's politicians and special interest posing and electioneering.

At the end of the day, these are the people we elect into Government, and that being said, makes them the ONLY ones who can change things, so of course they are going to react, and so they should, otherwise nothing would ever change.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 12):
If someone can propose a regulation, or a set of regulation, that we can say with a high degree of confidence that it would have prevented this event, or Sandy Hill, I would be more than happy to consider it. But throwing a few more regulations up just to show "action" - hell no.

Other countries seem to manage with gun regulations and laws, with far less uproar than you hear coming from the US.



Flown 905,468 kms or 2.356 times to the moon, 1296 hrs, Longest flight 10,524 kms
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (1 year 11 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2285 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 10):
I presume you mean the Salem Witch Trial mentality of the school administrators.

Don't blame those forced to enact the zero tolerance nonsense.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 12):
If someone can propose a regulation, or a set of regulation, that we can say with a high degree of confidence that it would have prevented this event, or Sandy Hill, I would be more than happy to consider it.

Don't know the source of the weapon in this case but Newtown would have been prevented if weapons were stored so that only the owner has access.


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8967 posts, RR: 24
Reply 16, posted (1 year 11 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2276 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 13):
In the US gun laws are lax, but not in Europe, where their gun murder rate is a pittance compared to ours, so this issue really is not the number of laws but the scope of the laws.
Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 14):
Other countries seem to manage with gun regulations and laws, with far less uproar than you hear coming from the US.

Don't compare the US with most other countries so easily. Europe has a very long history of restricting the ownership of weapons - can't have the peasants storming the palace every other week. The US is a nation born when the peasants literally armed themselves and threw out the noblemen who thought they had a god-given right to rule. Secondly, our expansion through the - often lawless - west was largely possible thanks to guns, to defend yourself against everything from wild animals, thieves, natives (oops), rivals, and anything else. In our culture, those honest, hardworking people who tamed the land and frequently had to defend it (because the only lawman nearby was maybe a day's ride away) are the iconic, quintessential American. John Wayne, if you will. I have travelled much and cannot think of any other countries that have such a cultural base of people who stand on their own two feet and can defend themselves - including from despotic governments.

Many people believe that it has been the mission of the left to destroy that culture, and in order to ensure "security", you must eliminate this culture of armed independence - which the NRA partly represents.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Ben Franklin



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8478 posts, RR: 9
Reply 17, posted (1 year 11 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2266 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 16):
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Think Old Ben was talking about Slavery?


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8967 posts, RR: 24
Reply 18, posted (1 year 11 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2266 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 15):
Don't know the source of the weapon in this case but Newtown would have been prevented if weapons were stored so that only the owner has access.

That is true enough - but the same restriction would have prevented the 15-year old last week from picking up his dad's gun, defending his home and his little sister, while their parents were out.

http://nation.foxnews.com/crime/2013...lars-shoots-one-them-fathers-ar-15

Are you willing to effectively disarm those people who live in a home where the "Man of the House" might own a gun, but if he is out, then you are out of luck?

Don't get me wrong - I don't reject your argument out of hand. It's a debate worth having. But you can't propose such a regulation without looking at the possible negative consequences - something the left has always had a profound, philosophical difficulty doing.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12965 posts, RR: 25
Reply 19, posted (1 year 11 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2262 times:

I understand the different traditions, and am not sure how that relates to the topic which is gun crime. What is more topical is that we have terrible levels of gun crime, they don't. We can't undo our past, but shouldn't we strive to improve our future?

To focus on the topic, I said:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 13):

It might be helpful to be able to trace this gun's history to see if it could have been kept out of his hands, but NRA has been doing all it can to block such things.

How would registering a gun be giving up an essential liberty?



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (1 year 11 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2247 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 18):
Are you willing to effectively disarm those people who live in a home where the "Man of the House" might own a gun, but if he is out, then you are out of luck?

I'm not only willing, I absolutely think that anyone who isn't trained and of legal age should not have access to weapons without supervision. A few examples where it saved someone do not compensate for the many more times where it create problems, often deadly.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 18):
But you can't propose such a regulation without looking at the possible negative consequences - something the left has always had a profound, philosophical difficulty doing.

Funny how NRA and the extreme right refuse to look at the negative consequences of not having gun control.


User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 21, posted (1 year 11 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2235 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 19):
How would registering a gun be giving up an essential liberty?

It doesn't, but that's not the point. The point is: By registering my weapons to the Feds, that automatically paints a big ass target on my back and on my door for all to see. This invites trouble and clearly gives criminals a reason to start breaking into homes and/or to cause bodily harm (ie: kill the law abiding gun owner in a fire fight). This is why I'm against gun registration.

But now, we are off topic......

Getting back on track with the topic here.... Lets not forget the type of shooting this is. This is NOT a mass shooting. This is just a shooting that started out with a fight that ended badly. This shooting was not premeditated....it wasn't planned.

This has nothing to do with Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech nor Columbine.....not even remotely related nor similar. Just thought I'd make that point well known here just in case some users don't know the difference.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (1 year 11 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2219 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 21):
Lets not forget the type of shooting this is. This is NOT a mass shooting. This is just a shooting that started out with a fight that ended badly. This shooting was not premeditated....it wasn't planned.

"just a shooting that started out with a fight
...
was not premeditated....it wasn't planned."

In other words. If it wasn't for that people routinely carry, for "self defense", this would not have been a shooting. Just as many of the 1,200 or so killed since Newtown.


User currently offlineALTF4 From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1214 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (1 year 11 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2212 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 22):
In other words. If it wasn't for that people routinely carry, for "self defense", this would not have been a shooting. Just as many of the 1,200 or so killed since Newtown.

I'm not sure I have ever seen anybody imply a fist-fight is a good thing.

Shouldn't we also address the issues that cause these altercations to begin with?

[Edited 2013-01-23 17:07:51]


The above post is my opinion. Don't like it? Don't read it.
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6937 posts, RR: 12
Reply 24, posted (1 year 11 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2205 times:

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 23):
I'm not sure I have ever seen anybody imply a fist-fight is a good thing.

I can imply it if you want. In fact I got into several during my school years. Fortunately I had no access to guns. I had/ve a recurve bow though, but you don't carry that easily nor discreetly.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8967 posts, RR: 24
Reply 25, posted (1 year 11 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2204 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 20):
A few examples where it saved someone do not compensate for the many more times where it create problems, often deadly.

Do you have any stats about that?

How would you even get statistics about it. If someone seemed threatening and I ended up pulling a gun on him, and he runs away, odds are that I would not see any need to report it, unless shots were actually fired. The number of situations where having a gun for self-defense prevented a crime is impossible to count, because they would not be reported, mostly.

Quoting cmf (Reply 22):
In other words. If it wasn't for that people routinely carry, for "self defense", this would not have been a shooting. Just as many of the 1,200 or so killed since Newtown.

I'd bet you dollars to donuts that the shooter in this case did not have a CCP.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 26, posted (1 year 11 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2187 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 22):
In other words. If it wasn't for that people routinely carry, for "self defense", this would not have been a shooting. Just as many of the 1,200 or so killed since Newtown.

Um, *bleep* no! Please don't twist my words. That's NOT what I meant, genius.

Try again!

W. T. F?!?!?!   



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12965 posts, RR: 25
Reply 27, posted (1 year 11 months 2 days ago) and read 2168 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 21):
The point is: By registering my weapons to the Feds, that automatically paints a big ass target on my back and on my door for all to see.

Such a registry need not be public, it could/should only be available to law enforcement. I can't look up stranger's license plate, for instance.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 21):
This invites trouble and clearly gives criminals a reason to start breaking into homes and/or to cause bodily harm (ie: kill the law abiding gun owner in a fire fight).

I'm not sure why a criminal who knows you have a gun would chose to face a gun battle with you rather than rob someone who isn't armed, and again, the registry need not be public, so they wouldn't know, just like the present.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 21):
This has nothing to do with Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech nor Columbine.....not even remotely related nor similar.

It does point out the NRA position that schools should be heavily armed camps, so instead of one shooting victim at this college we could have many more if everyone took out their pieces and started shooting.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7978 posts, RR: 51
Reply 28, posted (1 year 11 months 2 days ago) and read 2168 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 27):
Such a registry need not be public, it could/should only be available to law enforcement. I can't look up stranger's license plate, for instance.

I changed my position recently to be against registration unless it's very very clear that the information can never become public. Unbelievably, some people on here think it should be public and don't see it as a security risk...

Quoting Revelation (Reply 27):
I'm not sure why a criminal who knows you have a gun would chose to face a gun battle with you rather than rob someone who isn't armed, and again, the registry need not be public, so they wouldn't know, just like the present.

I agree if it's just one handgun or something, but what if this guy is a class III weapons collector? I know a guy who has about 30 weapons, many of them fully automatic. (He's a cop btw.) A single gun is not much of a target, but a plethora of weapons becomes much more worth it. I don't see anyone barging in while the guy is at home, but what's to keep them from breaking in when he's at work? Granted, the weapons are in a safe but if you have a big enough treasure inside the safe, I can see people going to some pretty extreme measures to get in there...

Rather not let Joe Blow Public know how many weapons I or others have. Joe Blow Law Enforcement can (and should IMO) know, but not everyone (especially the newspaper that published the firearm owners in that NY county... not illegal but unethical IMO)



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12965 posts, RR: 25
Reply 29, posted (1 year 11 months 2 days ago) and read 2163 times:

The registry should not be public to avoid this very kind of situation. Once that's done, then we should hope that your friend the cop is spending the right amount of money on gun vaults as he does on the guns instead of depending on half ass safeguards. He wouldn't want his fellow cops to be facing all those weapons, would he?


Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineALTF4 From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1214 posts, RR: 4
Reply 30, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2158 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 24):
I can imply it if you want. In fact I got into several during my school years. Fortunately I had no access to guns. I had/ve a recurve bow though, but you don't carry that easily nor discreetly.

See, that's what I don't understand. It simply doesn't cross my mind to punch somebody. Like, not even remotely. I haven't ever punched somebody. Just like it doesn't cross my mind to pull out my gun and shoot somebody. Or use my recurve bow to pin somebody to a tree.

Example: I was sitting in a parking lot the other day, finishing up a call before I went in to the supermarket. My car unlocks the driver's side door when it goes into park (I can change that, and will do so shortly). I'm sitting in my car, talking on my phone, leaning on the door sill, and my door opens and I nearly fall out because I'm leaning on it. Some guy mistook my car for his. He jumped back immediately. I didn't shoot him for it, or even reach for the gun in my concealed holster. I didn't punch him - even though I felt threatened at first and he, based on state law, actually did invade an extension of my home.

I don't comprehend how getting into a fist fight is a good thing. The fact that it is viewed as a good thing is, in my humble opinion that I know you will disagree with (which is not to say I'm right / you're wrong or I'm better than you for believing this), the root of the problem - we are ok with resorting to violence, and then expect people to put a lid on it and not escalate it to molten lead flying out of barrels.

I view my fists the same as I view my gun. I will first try to leave the scene, get away from what is going on, and won't use them until I feel threatened enough to take action to protect myself.



The above post is my opinion. Don't like it? Don't read it.
User currently offlinetype-rated From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 31, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2153 times:

The shooter in this case got some kind of immediate karma action. He shot himself in the bum while he was trying to put the gun in his waistband after the shooting. Is that dumb, or is that dumb?

User currently offlineDiamondFlyer From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 1632 posts, RR: 3
Reply 32, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2144 times:

Quoting type-rated (Reply 31):
The shooter in this case got some kind of immediate karma action. He shot himself in the bum while he was trying to put the gun in his waistband after the shooting. Is that dumb, or is that dumb?

Sounds like he has a future in the NFL

-DiamondFlyer


User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 33, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2142 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 27):
Such a registry need not be public, it could/should only be available to law enforcement

I agree with you, but that still doesn't assure me that it won't be made public. Until I get some guarantees that it won't be made public, I'll still be against it.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 27):
I'm not sure why a criminal who knows you have a gun would chose to face a gun battle with you rather than rob someone who isn't armed, and again, the registry need not be public, so they wouldn't know, just like the present.

You know, criminals get their guns illegally in so many different ways including robbing them from law abiding gun owners homes. You know that, right? Straw purchases are not the only method for them. DeltaMD90 in reply 28 said it better than I could.

Quoting type-rated (Reply 31):
He shot himself in the bum while he was trying to put the gun in his waistband after the shooting.

Yup! Totally not a CCW holder nor a NRA Member for sure, that dumb crook!



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineitsjustme From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2808 posts, RR: 9
Reply 34, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2131 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 33):
Yup! Totally not a CCW holder nor a NRA Member for sure

Right. Because we all know that CCW holders and NRA members never have accidental firearm discharges.
  


User currently offlineSkydrol From Canada, joined Oct 2003, 983 posts, RR: 10
Reply 35, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2125 times:

Quoting itsjustme (Reply 34):
Right. Because we all know that CCW holders and NRA members never have accidental firearm discharges.

Or post pictures posing with their guns, their home, their gun cabinet(s), state how many guns they have at home, and provide their name, address, and telephone number for anyone with internet access.

What is the worry about registering with a government agency when there are folks foolish enough to do all of the above for the entire world to know?

... and then justify that it is illegally obtained (stolen) guns which end up being used in criminal activities or gang members settling arguments.




✈ LD4 ✈



∙ ---{--« ∙ ----{--« ∙ --{-« ∙ ---{--« ∙ --{--« ∙ --{-« ∙ ----{--« ∙
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 36, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2105 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 25):
Do you have any stats about that?

Ahh, the mud throwing defense. Simple deduction from reports and articles.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 25):
I'd bet you dollars to donuts that the shooter in this case did not have a CCP.

Do you think he carried for protection or not?

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 26):
Um, *bleep* no! Please don't twist my words. That's NOT what I meant, genius.

Try again!

W. T. F?!?!?!

Why don't you enlighten us as to what you mean.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 27):
It does point out the NRA position that schools should be heavily armed camps, so instead of one shooting victim at this college we could have many more if everyone took out their pieces and started shooting.

  

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 28):
I changed my position recently to be against registration unless it's very very clear that the information can never become public. Unbelievably, some people on here think it should be public and don't see it as a security risk...

I don't think it should be public, but for other reasons than security. I do find the security argument to be conflicting with the frequent argument that crime goes down if perps know they risk to be shoot. The Kennesaw is safer than Chicago argument.


User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 37, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2079 times:

Quoting itsjustme (Reply 34):
Because we all know that CCW holders and NRA members never have accidental firearm discharges.

I never said that. NRA Members and CCW holders don't carry their firearms around in their waistband like a thug does.

Quoting cmf (Reply 36):
Why don't you enlighten us as to what you mean.

Sure, glad you asked! My point was to know the difference between a premeditated mass shooting vs a random shooting that was not premeditated. They're not the same thing, thus, it cannot be compared to Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech or Columbine.

It was two guys getting into a fight, and ended in someone getting shot. That doesn't sound like a mass shooting to me.

And my words, like what you just did in reply 22, CMF, should not be twisted nor should you be putting words in other people's mouths. Maybe I'd you asked nicely about what I meant the first time around, you wouldn't be getting replies like this, Genius.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8967 posts, RR: 24
Reply 38, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2081 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 36):
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 25):
Do you have any stats about that?

Ahh, the mud throwing defense. Simple deduction from reports and articles.

Asking for evidence is now mudslinging? I think your deductive skills are lacking.

Quoting cmf (Reply 36):
Do you think he carried for protection or not?

I think he was a gang member.

Quoting cmf (Reply 36):
I don't think it should be public, but for other reasons than security. I do find the security argument to be conflicting with the frequent argument that crime goes down if perps know they risk to be shoot. The Kennesaw is safer than Chicago argument.

I live in Kennesaw, and own 8 guns. (Only one is a handgun and none are "assault-type", BTW). None of them are registered with the local PD, as they were all bought out of state or inherited. So nobody breaking into my house can possibly have any intel of what's in here. Frankly, I don't trust the government to keep such information secret. I don't trust anyone, for that matter. In this information age, computers get hacked all the time.

And yes, the people around here are quite proud of how safe the area is compared to other other cities nearby.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12965 posts, RR: 25
Reply 39, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2075 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 33):
You know, criminals get their guns illegally in so many different ways including robbing them from law abiding gun owners homes. You know that, right?

Indeed, so now we're talking about the gun thief who is smart enough to use a registry to find a gun owner, but dumb enough to try to take the gun while the owner is home instead of waiting till the gun owner is not at home?

As earlier, we should be moving to 'smart guns' that use biometrics to make sure the only one using the gun will be the registered owner.

In any case, I think registry lookups should be for law enforcement only, for this very reason. I know this can be abused just like automobile registries, but you deal with it the same way: make it clear that anyone giving away this info is risking their career and freedom by doing so.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinestealthz From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5744 posts, RR: 44
Reply 40, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2076 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 37):
It was two guys getting into a fight, and ended in someone getting shot. That doesn't sound like a mass shooting to me.

No it isn't a mass shooting but from what I read it is a disagreement that may have ended without harm(if not peacebly) except for the fact that the alleged shooter, after walking away(from witness reports) remembered he had a gun and returned to the scene and used it.
Seems to me would be better if the guy hadn't exercised his right to be armed!!
From what I read , he said he didn' want to be in a fight, didn't want to go to gaol... how much easier would that choice be for him if he didn't have a gun?



If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2755 posts, RR: 8
Reply 41, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2073 times:

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 3):
America cant go on being prepared to lose up to 900 lives a month and be complacent with that can you ?

10,000 plus killed a year by drunk drivers. Where are all the threads for that? This is about "control", by the left.

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 11):
I never said I had the specific answer to this problem, just stating, that along with others here, something in regards to more stringent regulation/s needs to happen in order to try and stop this from happening again don't you think ?

It is not about the guns. it is about the culture. That is what needs to be changed.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 13):
but NRA has been doing all it can to block such things.

Which is what we pay them to do.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 13):
but not in Europe, where their gun murder rate is a pittance compared to ours, so this issue really is not the number of laws but the scope of the laws

It is the culture. Where do a majority of these gun murders happen?

Quoting Revelation (Reply 27):
Such a registry need not be public, it could/should only be available to law enforcement.

So we have the right to be armed to protect us against a tyrannical government and then you want us to give our info to that government.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 27):
this college we could have many more if everyone took out their pieces and started shooting

This argument really get's old.

Quoting cmf (Reply 36):
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 25):Do you have any stats about that?Ahh, the mud throwing defense. Simple deduction from reports and articles.

So the answer is no I guess.



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12965 posts, RR: 25
Reply 42, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2067 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 41):
10,000 plus killed a year by drunk drivers. Where are all the threads for that? This is about "control", by the left.

Nice NRA style tactic: change the topic as quickly as possible.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 41):
It is not about the guns. it is about the culture. That is what needs to be changed.

I think the culture would change if guns weren't so easy to get and so easy to pass from hand to hand. Register the gun when you buy it and legally transfer it and report it when it's stolen, and life would be much better for law enforcement and for society at large.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 41):
So we have the right to be armed to protect us against a tyrannical government and then you want us to give our info to that government.

Gun lovers can't have it both ways. Either the militia part is invisible/inoperative as Scalia has ruled and then the militia thing also is inoperative and we can/should ignore it, or it IS operative and it means militia and is interpreted in the context understood by the writers, i.e. a civilian branch of the army, and not for the joy of gun ownership or overthrowing the government or any other reason.

In any case, the government knowing you bear arms is not the same as the government preventing you from bearing arms. They know I have a home and a car and a dog too. I also have an attack cat who I am training to overthrow the tyrannical government, so please don't tell them about that.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineitsjustme From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2808 posts, RR: 9
Reply 43, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2047 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 41):
10,000 plus killed a year by drunk drivers. Where are all the threads for that? This is about "control", by the left.

I absolutely love it when those on the right and the NRA start grasping at straws in an attempt to try and prove a point. That indicates those of us who are obviously the clearer thinking in this debate are making strong advances in taking steps to stem the 30 people a day being killed by gunfire in the U.S.

That being said, in response to this ridiculous analogy, I will point out that several years ago, we recognized the escalation in drunk driving related deaths and we have been taking steps to address it. We cut in half, the legal blood alcohol content one can have in order to operate a motor vehicle (.15 to today's .08). With Federal grants, we have increased the frequency of our DUI patrols and DUI checkpoints. And some states, 15 to be exact, have mandated that those convicted of first offense DUI install an ignition interlock device on their vehicle(s) that require a breath sample proving a BAC of less than .04 in order for the car to start. The result of these actions has resulted in a 64% decrease in alcohol-related driving deaths. We recognized a serious problem and, through legislation, we have made significant strides in correcting it. We need to take the same approach with firearm-related deaths. Please take your lame attempt to shift the focus of our murder-by-gun problem in the U.S. to drunk driving deaths elsewhere.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 41):
So we have the right to be armed to protect us against a tyrannical government and then you want us to give our info to that government.

Yep. And here's just one of many reasons why: How else is the government supposed to track those who legally own a firearm but have since been adjudicated as mentally ill, or have been convicted of a felony, or have had a restraining order filed against them?

[Edited 2013-01-24 08:15:56]

User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 44, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2022 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 37):
Sure, glad you asked! My point was to know the difference between a premeditated mass shooting vs a random shooting that was not premeditated. They're not the same thing, thus, it cannot be compared to Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech or Columbine.

It was two guys getting into a fight, and ended in someone getting shot. That doesn't sound like a mass shooting to me.

And my words, like what you just did in reply 22, CMF, should not be twisted nor should you be putting words in other people's mouths. Maybe I'd you asked nicely about what I meant the first time around, you wouldn't be getting replies like this, Genius.

I fully agree that premeditated is different from not premeditated. In the later case you only have access to what you have on you at the time. Thus, if he had not been carrying it would not have been a gun fight.

Genius...

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 38):
I think he was a gang member.

That may be. Do you think he carried for self defense?

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 38):
I live in Kennesaw, and own 8 guns. (Only one is a handgun and none are "assault-type", BTW). None of them are registered with the local PD, as they were all bought out of state or inherited. So nobody breaking into my house can possibly have any intel of what's in here. Frankly, I don't trust the government to keep such information secret. I don't trust anyone, for that matter. In this information age, computers get hacked all the time.

But posting what you have on the internet is no problem...

Anyway, it would be much more interesting if you actually addressed the security inconsistency of the NRA/TP viewpoint. You know the one where at one moment they say - We are safer because criminals know we have guns in Kennesaw. And in next state - We can't let people know we have guns. That would make us targets.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 41):
10,000 plus killed a year by drunk drivers. Where are all the threads for that? This is about "control", by the left.
itsjustme answered this very well.

It is amazing how the extreme right keep falling back to this flawed argument. I frequently see the police setting up stops to check for drunk driving. Imagine what would happen if they did it to check if people carrying guns had permits.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 41):
So the answer is no I guess.

The answer is yes, and I provided the sources. Sadly it takes combining multiple reports so it can't be referenced with a simple link. It doesn't take a genius. But it takes understanding the fallacy of the drunk driver argument.


User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2755 posts, RR: 8
Reply 45, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2012 times:

Quoting itsjustme (Reply 43):
How else is the government supposed to track those who legally own a firearm but have since been adjudicated as mentally ill, or have been convicted of a felony, or have had a restraining order filed against them?

None of their business...They can find these things out when they are committed or convicted.

Quoting itsjustme (Reply 43):
I absolutely love it when those on the right and the NRA start grasping at straws in an attempt to try and prove a point. That indicates those of us who are obviously the clearer thinking in this debate are making strong advances in taking steps to stem the 30 people a day being killed by gunfire in the U.S.

And I love it when the left tries to ignore death's by all other causes in order to make their case against legal gun owner's. Thirty people every die being murdered by gunfire? I thought murder was illegal?

Quoting cmf (Reply 44):
It is amazing how the extreme right keep falling back to this flawed argument.

It is amazing how yo keep calling people who want to keep their Constitutional rights extreme. You are tryng to take mine away so that make you the extreme one. The NRA is the most active and longest surviving civil rights group yet they are extreme. What a joke.

Quoting itsjustme (Reply 43):
We need to take the same approach with firearm-related deaths. Please take your lame attempt to shift the focus of our murder-by-gun problem in the U.S. to drunk driving deaths elsewhere.

Murder is the problem. Not murder by gun. Stop focusing on the gun. It is not the problem. Murder by DUI's you want to ignore but with a gun...Laser beem focus...  Wow! How about we focus on Murder's including those by gun, bat, knives, car's etc...By ignoring everything else you are making your argument the lame one.



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7978 posts, RR: 51
Reply 46, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2009 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 29):
The registry should not be public to avoid this very kind of situation. Once that's done, then we should hope that your friend the cop is spending the right amount of money on gun vaults as he does on the guns instead of depending on half ass safeguards. He wouldn't want his fellow cops to be facing all those weapons, would he?

It isn't "half assed" it was heavy duty, fire proof, and bolted to the floor of his house. That is not my point. If smart enough criminals found out about a stash (aka a lot) of really good weapons (vs a safe with a single, rusty shotgun) you might see that house as a target. They could overwhelm the guy in an ambush or something and nothing, not even the best safe, is thief proof. I saw a few guys in the fire department bust open an ATM (quite the feat) using nothing but a giant crowbar, a mallet, and raw strength. I'll tie it in with the next quote:

Quoting cmf (Reply 36):
I don't think it should be public, but for other reasons than security. I do find the security argument to be conflicting with the frequent argument that crime goes down if perps know they risk to be shoot. The Kennesaw is safer than Chicago argument.

I think it's a flawed argument anyway, no one can say more guns = safer or less safe. I think Chicago being a huge city with a lot of poverty has more to do with its crime than strict gun laws. That's not my point... as I said earlier, I don't think someone is more likely to break into a gun owner's house... I would think the opposite. But if Joe Criminal with ties to a gang or cartel knows that 100 Baker St has 30 automatics (from a legal, good collector) I could see them go through some ridiculous lengths to kill the guy and steal all those guns.

Not arguing against registration, just the goofy public/media knowing about it

Quoting Revelation (Reply 39):
As earlier, we should be moving to 'smart guns' that use biometrics to make sure the only one using the gun will be the registered owner.

Eh, I don't know about this. What is the crazy guy is the gun owner? What happens when you go to the range and hand the gun to your wife or friends? Do you have to touch the gun when you fire?

I'm not saying there aren't merits, I could see this happening with police weapons or something, but I see this as a bigger pain than gain, and there are many other good features that wouldn't cause so much inconvenience (and probably a pretty penny too)



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12965 posts, RR: 25
Reply 47, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2006 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 45):
It is amazing how yo keep calling people who want to keep their Constitutional rights extreme.

Why, are you the member of a militia? If so, my guess is it must not be much of a militia, since I'd imagine they'd already be marching on Washington, based on NRA attitudes. Either that, or the idea of a militia or fighting the tyrannical government is all nonsense... could that be?   



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently onlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21866 posts, RR: 55
Reply 48, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1997 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 21):
The point is: By registering my weapons to the Feds, that automatically paints a big ass target on my back and on my door for all to see.

It really doesn't. Nobody has to know.

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 23):
I'm not sure I have ever seen anybody imply a fist-fight is a good thing.

On its own, no. As an alternative to a gunfight, that's another matter. Then it's a very good thing.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 33):
Until I get some guarantees that it won't be made public, I'll still be against it.

You'll never get an absolute guarantee. But you rarely, if ever, hear of a security breach in government data - more often it's private companies that have those problems. So I have no problem trusting the government with that information.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 41):
So we have the right to be armed to protect us against a tyrannical government and then you want us to give our info to that government.

Yes. Because what's more likely: the government trying to take your guns, or criminals selling guns to other criminals and getting away with it because there's no means of figuring out how those guns got to crime scenes? People are getting killed on a regular basis because we don't have the means of putting gun traffickers in prison, and yet you'd claim we can't do a thing about it because of some strange paranoia that the government is coming for you.

I'd imagine that you would be against a database of people with mental illnesses as well?

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineitsjustme From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2808 posts, RR: 9
Reply 49, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1984 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 45):
None of their business...They can find these things out when they are committed or convicted.

Ummm, without some sort of formal registration process in place, how do you purpose we "find these things out when they are committed or convicted"? I guess we could ask them. "Excuse me, Mr. Felon, do you have any firearms at home? No? Oh, OK, thanks". Or, I guess anytime someone is convicted of a felony, we could execute search warrants on their residence, their vehicles, and their place of business. Yeah, that makes much more sense then having a database we can check in a matter of seconds to see if there's any record of a newly convicted felon making any firearms purchases.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 45):

And I love it when the left tries to ignore death's by all other causes

Please see my Reply 43. You compared drunk driving deaths to gun deaths and I showed how no one "ignored" this Country's drunk driving problem. To the contrary. We recognized the problem, we addressed the problem, and as a result, tens of thousands of lives have been saved. Next?


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12965 posts, RR: 25
Reply 50, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1977 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 46):
It isn't "half assed" it was heavy duty, fire proof, and bolted to the floor of his house.

Good to hear that. Not enough people do it the right way.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 46):
That is not my point. If smart enough criminals found out about a stash (aka a lot) of really good weapons (vs a safe with a single, rusty shotgun) you might see that house as a target. They could overwhelm the guy in an ambush or something and nothing, not even the best safe, is thief proof. I saw a few guys in the fire department bust open an ATM (quite the feat) using nothing but a giant crowbar, a mallet, and raw strength.

Such data hasn't proven to be an issue. If it was, for instance, we'd see thieves looking for a stash of high-end cars to rip off based on prowling the license plate database. I'm sure it can/has happened, but the way it's addressed is a lot of data traceability to figure out who is looking at what records, as well as the penalty (loss of career, jail time) being severe enough to deter corruption.

Are you just as concerned about the NRA having a database of members? Seems more likely that I could hack in there or bribe an NRA employee (who wouldn't be facing federal time for sharing commercial data) to get me the info of who the life members are, and presume they must have a good stash of guns and then lie in wait for them to come home, etc.

Hmm, wonder who the NRA sells their database to???

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 46):
Eh, I don't know about this. What is the crazy guy is the gun owner? What happens when you go to the range and hand the gun to your wife or friends? Do you have to touch the gun when you fire?

There's always exceptions to the rule, but the loophole we're trying to cover is how to figure out the history of a given gun and how the crazy guy got it in the first place.

I'm glad we're having the discussion, but it's amazing how far many (not you in this case) go to point out the exception then try to throw the baby out with the bathwater...

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 46):
I'm not saying there aren't merits, I could see this happening with police weapons or something, but I see this as a bigger pain than gain, and there are many other good features that wouldn't cause so much inconvenience (and probably a pretty penny too)

Again, the discussion is good, the concept can be refined...

Quoting Mir (Reply 48):
You'll never get an absolute guarantee. But you rarely, if ever, hear of a security breach in government data - more often it's private companies that have those problems.

See above - people can be thrown in jail for misuse of government data, private sector is a civil matter...



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 51, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1971 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 45):
It is amazing how yo keep calling people who want to keep their Constitutional rights extreme. You are tryng to take mine away so that make you the extreme one. The NRA is the most active and longest surviving civil rights group yet they are extreme. What a joke.

I have never called those who want there constitutional rights extreme. I said it is the extreme right who is abusing it to grab more than it grants. Funny how you object to the kind of classification you have used for so long.


User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 52, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1975 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 44):
I fully agree that premeditated is different from not premeditated. In the later case you only have access to what you have on you at the time. Thus, if he had not been carrying it would not have been a gun fight.

That was pretty much my point. Glad you finally caught on, Genius. Done arguing with you on this thread.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 53, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1964 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 52):
That was pretty much my point. Glad you finally caught on, Genius. Done arguing with you on this thread.

Great to see that you now agree with what I stated in my original reply. That it if it wasn't for that they walked around armed "just in case", this wouldn't have been a shooting.

So why the hissy fit and name calling?


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7978 posts, RR: 51
Reply 54, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1961 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 50):
Such data hasn't proven to be an issue.

I wouldn't want to test that theory out... I honestly think we are in agreement though, you do not want the registry public, no?

Quoting Revelation (Reply 50):
Are you just as concerned about the NRA having a database of members?

Yes I would be. They do not have a database as far as I know, but I'm not a member of the NRA anyway



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 55, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1956 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 54):
Yes I would be. They do not have a database as far as I know, but I'm not a member of the NRA anyway

As just about every organisation they have a membership database. They state it is only available inside NRA and will never be sold.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12965 posts, RR: 25
Reply 56, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1958 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 54):
I wouldn't want to test that theory out... I honestly think we are in agreement though, you do not want the registry public

Correct.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 54):
Yes I would be. They do not have a database as far as I know, but I'm not a member of the NRA anyway

I think you can presume any entity you deal with electronically or via mail has a database with your name in it.

The world has moved on from scribes and papyrus, etc.

Hmm maybe I should start a rumor that the NRA has been secretly providing its database to the FBI, NSA, CIA and Trilateral Commission so they know who to snuff out when they start up the New World Order?   

Paranoia runs deep in the NRA so I bet it'd take hold...



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6937 posts, RR: 12
Reply 57, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1957 times:

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 30):
I don't comprehend how getting into a fist fight is a good thing. The fact that it is viewed as a good thing is, in my humble opinion that I know you will disagree with (which is not to say I'm right / you're wrong or I'm better than you for believing this), the root of the problem - we are ok with resorting to violence, and then expect people to put a lid on it and not escalate it to molten lead flying out of barrels.

I don't disagree with you, I don't advocate violence and am not a violent guy (and to shoot a bow with any accuracy, you better be calm). I was just saying that I would take a fist fight over a gun fight any day.

I have never been mugged, I wouldn't like it, but I know that here the mugger will never have a gun, and often not even a knife. I will still give what I have without a fight because I don't have anything worth being hurt for.

I was talking about school years for a reason, a time when you are immature and inexperienced. Some are advocating for professors to be armed. How long before a kid manages to grab a professor's gun ?



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineitsjustme From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2808 posts, RR: 9
Reply 58, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1954 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 37):
I never said that. NRA Members and CCW holders don't carry their firearms around in their waistband like a thug does.

Well, I'm sorry but you're wrong. I'm not a thug yet, depending on what I'm wearing, I sometimes carry my off duty weapon in an inside the waistband holster.


User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 59, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1946 times:

Quoting itsjustme (Reply 58):

Ok fine.... How about this: carrying a gun in the waistband WITHOUT a holster. Thugs/criminals don't use holsters, especially gangs.

But I'm still correct. Deal with it.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineitsjustme From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2808 posts, RR: 9
Reply 60, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1943 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 55):
As just about every organisation they have a membership database. They state it is only available inside NRA and will never be sold.

Which is why I question their membership supposedly being 4 million members.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 59):
But I'm still correct. Deal with it.

This comment speaks volumes. Even though I have proven your theory to be wrong ("the shooter must have been a thug because he had his weapon in his waistband") you're still displaying the typical NRA, bully mentality. "I'm right because I said so".


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12965 posts, RR: 25
Reply 61, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1933 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 55):
As just about every organisation they have a membership database. They state it is only available inside NRA and will never be sold.

Hmm, maybe Anonymous or some other hacker community might want a peek at it?   

It sure would tell them where to look for guns, I suppose..



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7978 posts, RR: 51
Reply 62, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1931 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 56):
I think you can presume any entity you deal with electronically or via mail has a database with your name in it.

Oh I see what you are seeing, I thought you meant the NRA somehow had a database of everyone's firearms. Well I guess that could be exploited, but no one with a gun has to join the NRA, whereas anyone with a gun would have to register it for a registry. Plus, criminals may somehow know NRA members but they wouldn't know what is in the house... a bunch of autos or a geezer with his father's old bolt action .22



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinejetmech From Australia, joined Mar 2006, 2699 posts, RR: 53
Reply 63, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1924 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 33):
I agree with you, but that still doesn't assure me that it won't be made public. Until I get some guarantees that it won't be made public, I'll still be against it.

In what context do you use the word public? Do you mean public as in freely available to all from the get go, or inadvertently made public / accessed illegally? Please understand, this is a genuine question, I'm not attempting to question or downplay your concerns.


Quoting windy95 (Reply 41):
So we have the right to be armed to protect us against a tyrannical government and then you want us to give our info to that government.

I really don't get the whole defence against tyrannical government argument.

Short of some catastrophic national emergency, the likelihood that an order will ever be given for the US military to deploy domestically and oppress / fight the US people is vanishingly low.

The likelihood such an order will be whole-heartedly embraced by those in the military is lower yet again, as almost all of the members of the US military have families in the civilian population.

Assuming the order is given and whole-heartedly embraced, the likelihood that an armed US civilian population – even with 300 million firearms – will prevail against a nuclear armed military is even lower yet again.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 41):
10,000 plus killed a year by drunk drivers. Where are all the threads for that?
Quoting windy95 (Reply 45):
And I love it when the left tries to ignore death's by all other causes in order to make their case against legal gun owner's

As others have said, your use of the "vehicle death" argument is flawed. Again I raise the same question I do in every gun control debate, a question that has yet to receive anything like a reasonable answer from the pro-gun side;

"Motorised vehicles provide a widespread beneficial utility to society that far outweighs the number of deaths associated with them. What equivalent utility is provided by firearms that come anywhere near to providing justification for the number of deaths associated with them?"

Regards, JetMech



JetMech split the back of his pants. He can feel the wind in his hair.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7978 posts, RR: 51
Reply 64, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1922 times:

Quoting jetmech (Reply 63):
As others have said, your use of the "vehicle death" argument is flawed. Again I raise the same question I do in every gun control debate, a question that has yet to receive anything like a reasonable answer from the pro-gun side;

"Motorised vehicles provide a widespread beneficial utility to society that far outweighs the number of deaths associated with them. What equivalent utility is provided by firearms that come anywhere near to providing justification for the number of deaths associated with them?"

If anything, alcohol works out better. Not really "any use" and it causes a ton of death. Price of freedom, though I do agree with common sense regulations



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12965 posts, RR: 25
Reply 65, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1921 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 62):
Plus, criminals may somehow know NRA members but they wouldn't know what is in the house... a bunch of autos or a geezer with his father's old bolt action .22

Sounds like some good ideas for a action/adventure novel.

We already have people bragging about being NRA Life Members, so that info would be in the NRA's databases. I think having a higher grade of membership and/or a longer term of membership indicates you're more than a casual member. Then you can match addresses against all kinds of demographic databases and set up filters for various demographics of interest. Add to that info on people caught in gun violations because such records are public records in many jurisdictions, and after a simple data mining exercise you have your list of people/places to stake out.

So, in this work of fiction, you can have the protagonist be someone who develops a vendetta against gun owners, and uses the above technique to select them for some sort of special action. A nice base line of irony about how the NRA freedom fighters who are paranoid about government databases get selected due to the database they themselves enrolled into, mixed with the irony of those who are paranoid about home invasion end up potentially self-identifying themselves for potential home invasion and/or other special actions.

I can't say any more, I don't want to give it all away!



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8967 posts, RR: 24
Reply 66, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1911 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 51):
I have never called those who want there constitutional rights extreme. I said it is the extreme right who is abusing it to grab more than it grants.

The constitution grants unlimited access and ownership of weapons. Large cannons were already in existence at the time, and I see nothing in the 2nd amendment that restricts us from owning artillery pieces.

Now, out of rationality, we have widely agreed on restrictions on the more potent weapons. Effectively, 90% of all weapons are already banned from private ownership, and the remaining 10% is subject to background checks, CCPs etc. Within reason. What we don't want is for the left to take the remaining 10% away.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently onlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21866 posts, RR: 55
Reply 67, posted (1 year 11 months 22 hours ago) and read 1894 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 66):
The constitution grants unlimited access and ownership of weapons.

I'd challenge you to find a Supreme Court interpretation that backs that up. Even the Heller decision acknowledged that the 2nd Amendment is not unlimited.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 66):
What we don't want is for the left to take the remaining 10% away.

And that's not going to happen. But I really don't understand the NRA's resistance to anti-trafficking measures.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12965 posts, RR: 25
Reply 68, posted (1 year 11 months 15 hours ago) and read 1861 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 67):
But I really don't understand the NRA's resistance to anti-trafficking measures.

There's a lot of unfortunate ironies out there to choose from:
- Sandy Hook has been a windfall for (legit and non-legit) gun and ammo merchants and manufacturers
- NRA is the gun criminal's best friend, by blocking anti-trafficing measures



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 69, posted (1 year 11 months 15 hours ago) and read 1863 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 66):
The constitution grants unlimited access and ownership of weapons. Large cannons were already in existence at the time, and I see nothing in the 2nd amendment that restricts us from owning artillery pieces.

Now, out of rationality, we have widely agreed on restrictions on the more potent weapons. Effectively, 90% of all weapons are already banned from private ownership, and the remaining 10% is subject to background checks, CCPs etc. Within reason. What we don't want is for the left to take the remaining 10% away.

Ban is the message you and your NRA/TP friends keep harping. Start taking responsibility and gun control will be a non issue.

Require that people are trained and have shown proficiency before they are allowed to carry loaded weapons in public. Not like now where someone who have never touched a gun can do it after a couple of hours.

Require that guns are stored properly. You tried to make a single example mean your point was proven. Here are three examples of things that are easily be prevented by using common sense
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...sister-philadelphia_n_2257939.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Molxl-JA87w
http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/...-mary-gander-mountain-parki/nTpkN/
Side note: Do you think these owners should be allowed to own weapons?

Require regular checks of proficiency. That isn't just in being able to hit what you target. It is much more about knowing how to handle the weapon when not pointed at a target and knowing the laws.

Take responsibility for that your guns stay with law-abiding citizens. It means every transaction must be registered and the seller is responsible for having followed the requirements to verify the buyer is eligible for owning weapons.

File a police report every time you use a gun for defense. That means every time you show you're armed. Not only when you fire your weapon.

Stop blocking research.

Stop the fear mongering and purposly misuse of statistics, i.e. only 10% remaining.


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8967 posts, RR: 24
Reply 70, posted (1 year 11 months 14 hours ago) and read 1860 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 69):
Ban is the message you and your NRA/TP friends keep harping.

You had a couple of good points in your post but then you have to go off target and try to vilify the TP again. The TP has NOTHING to do with gun control. They are about taxation and spending. Why do you feel the need to bring them up?



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 71, posted (1 year 11 months 14 hours ago) and read 1859 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 70):
The TP has NOTHING to do with gun control.

Really.

Then why is 'Second Amendment' the biggest issue on their national website at this time?

http://www.teaparty.org/category/secondamendment/

The Tea Party core beliefs.

Quote:
15 Non-negotiable Core Beliefs

1. Illegal aliens are here illegally.
2. Pro-domestic employment is indispensable.
3. A strong military is essential.
4. Special interests must be eliminated.
5. Gun ownership is sacred.
6. Government must be downsized.
7. The national budget must be balanced.
8. Deficit spending must end.
9. Bailout and stimulus plans are illegal.
10. Reducing personal income taxes is a must.
11. Reducing business income taxes is mandatory.
12. Political offices must be available to average citizens.
13. Intrusive government must be stopped.
14. English as our core language is required.
15. Traditional family values are encouraged.

Gun ownership is a higher priority than balancing the budget/ deficit spending.

http://www.teaparty.org/about-us/

This is the page for the TOP PRIORITY issue for the Tea Party today - Deport Piers Morgan for his stance on gun control

http://www.teaparty.org/hottea/

[Edited 2013-01-25 06:14:00]

User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8967 posts, RR: 24
Reply 72, posted (1 year 11 months 13 hours ago) and read 1846 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 71):
Then why is 'Second Amendment' the biggest issue on their national website at this time?

OK, I grant that with so many different "Tea Parties" out there, some have gone off topic. The origin of the movement was fiscal. But why did you have to bring it up anyway?



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 73, posted (1 year 11 months 13 hours ago) and read 1847 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 70):
You had a couple of good points in your post but then you have to go off target and try to vilify the TP again. The TP has NOTHING to do with gun control. They are about taxation and spending. Why do you feel the need to bring them up?

1) Most TP candidates and members promote extremely lax gun laws.

2) You constantly make your points on stereotypical/vilifying political views. It is amazing how you object when the same is done in reverse.


User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 74, posted (1 year 11 months 13 hours ago) and read 1843 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 72):
so many different "Tea Parties" out there

That is the web site of the official, original movement who own the name Tea Party. Their initial origin was not just fiscal. It included the 15 Non-negotiable Core Beliefs from the start.

Now, I will grant that the Contract for America from the Houston lawyer did not mention gun control/ second amendment as an issue.

However, gun control is a core issue for almost every political candidate who is identified as 'Tea Party'.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 72):
But why did you have to bring it up anyway?

I only responded to your statement that the TP had nothing to do with the debate on gun control. What the 'Tea Party' has evolved into today is a very anti-gun control lobbying organization. Probably more focused on the gun control debate than fiscal conservatism - which is sad.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12965 posts, RR: 25
Reply 75, posted (1 year 11 months 10 hours ago) and read 1826 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 71):
3. A strong military is essential.
4. Special interests must be eliminated.
5. Gun ownership is sacred.

Does anyone else see the irony of having "Special interests must be eliminated" right in between "A strong military is essential" and "Gun ownership is sacred" ???

Stupid is as stupid does, I guess...



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinebhill From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1023 posts, RR: 0
Reply 76, posted (1 year 11 months 8 hours ago) and read 1817 times:

I know what regulation...the 2nd Amendment. The "Well Regulated" part. That right there would make it the law of the land in ALL the states.....But it seems to get drowned out in the first part.


Carpe Pices
User currently offlineME AVN FAN From Switzerland, joined May 2002, 13920 posts, RR: 25
Reply 77, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1779 times:

Quoting flymia (Reply 2):
didnt happen at a college and instead on a street corner, supermarket, home etc.. It wouldn't be news a

The matter would not have resulted in "news" really. BUT it closely followed previous shootings in the USA. And now, people both inside and outside the USA take notice of such things.. You may compare it with Switzerland. When a drunkard in a remote alpine village becomes a bit violent or a refugee from the Kosovo behaves badly it generally is just recorded under "local news". But right now such rubbish gets into the headlines. In Switzerland it is regard as normal that
>> ownership of weapons is properly recorded and documented
>> that you have to get a kin of "licence" to own a fire weapon
>> that there are restrictions

nobody in Switzerland is denied the right to own a good pocket-knife, and practically nobody originating from courtriies like Algeria, ex-Yugoslavia, Turkey etc objects not to be allowed to own a firearm. Anyone from such nationialities can rent a rifle at the shooting association and hand it back at the end.

but the totalitarian view of so many US Americans in regard to this is irritating, to put it mildly

I right personally had to keep a semi-automatic army-rifle at home between 1972 and 1995, had to take it with me once per year for some shooting, and between 1972 and 1982 each year for three weeks and in 1984, 86, 88, 90, 92 for a week per year. And would have loved it, had I had the chance to deposit that piece of shit somewhere outside in a secure place


User currently offlinetype-rated From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 78, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1715 times:

How is this for a turn of events... charges dropped!

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=8970716


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 79, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1703 times:

Quoting type-rated (Reply 78):
How is this for a turn of events... charges dropped!

Half truth  


User currently offlineokie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 3188 posts, RR: 3
Reply 80, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1701 times:

Quoting type-rated (Reply 78):
How is this for a turn of events... charges dropped!

I had wondered from day one how in the heck you shoot your own self in the a$$.

Quoting cmf (Reply 79):
Half truth

The county/parish/state will always leave some charges even though they were trying to prosecute a victim as leverage for testimony and leverage against libel charges if the victim decides to file charges against county.
Sheriff Garcia was holding his picture along with a quite a few statements on national tv basically making himself judge and jury.
Does not look good for the Sheriff.

Okie


User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 81, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1681 times:

Quoting type-rated (Reply 78):
charges dropped!

No surprise.

The initial identification was based on his hat and shirt, not his face. And his wound was assumed to be the result of placing his gun in his pocket. Which he didn't have.

Once the victims were shown his picture - the police learned they had arrested another shooting victim, not the real shooter.

Police also realized that they had let the real shooter walk away from the scene.

The real shooter was arrested in Plano a couple days later.

They were real lucky he was found so quickly.


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 82, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1670 times:

Quoting okie (Reply 80):
The county/parish/state will always leave some charges even though they were trying to prosecute a victim as leverage for testimony and leverage against libel charges if the victim decides to file charges against county.
Sheriff Garcia was holding his picture along with a quite a few statements on national tv basically making himself judge and jury.
Does not look good for the Sheriff.

Charges was dropped for one of the two. The other person is still being charged.


User currently offlineokie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 3188 posts, RR: 3
Reply 83, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1651 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 82):
Charges was dropped for one of the two. The other person is still being charged.

Incorrect, only the charge of aggravated assault was dropped.

Okie


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 84, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1642 times:

Quoting okie (Reply 83):
Incorrect, only the charge of aggravated assault was dropped.

  

OK, what charge(s) remains against Carlton Berry? And what is the status of Trey Foster?


User currently offlineokie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 3188 posts, RR: 3
Reply 85, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1630 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 84):
OK, what charge(s) remains against Carlton Berry

He is still charged with resisting arrest.

That is called leverage.

Okie

[Edited 2013-01-29 07:29:02]

User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 86, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1612 times:

Quoting okie (Reply 85):
He is still charged with resisting arrest.

What is your source for that? Because the info I have seen is that all charges against Berry are dropped but foster faces assault from this case and resisting arrest from an earlier case.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Mass Shooting At Sikh Temple posted Sun Aug 5 2012 21:46:35 by DocLightning
Neo-Nazi Shooting At US Holocaust Museum posted Wed Jun 10 2009 12:06:11 by Dtwclipper
Shooting At Finnish School posted Tue Sep 23 2008 02:55:51 by OHLHD
Anyone Willing To Look At My Fnl College Paper? posted Thu Aug 7 2008 08:09:06 by KLM672
Fatal Shooting At Bulgarian Orphanage posted Wed Mar 12 2008 14:29:00 by OA260
Shooting At Finnish School posted Wed Nov 7 2007 03:41:09 by Mika
Shooting At Virginia Tech - Part 2 posted Thu Apr 19 2007 00:22:37 by ANCFlyer
Shooting At VA Tech posted Mon Apr 16 2007 17:59:50 by FriendlySkies
Shooting At The CNN Center In ATL posted Tue Apr 3 2007 20:07:04 by JetBlueGuy2006
About Houston, TX posted Wed Jan 31 2007 17:37:03 by Yu138086