us Target asks its customers to kindly not shop while armed with guns

[Rippleman]

How am I pulling what he said out of context...his words..

 

curious, currently, how do you determine who is a bad guy and who is not? If someone with a gun doesn't kill someone with a today, should one assume he wont tomorrow? Do bad guys kill people everyday of their life? When do they become a bad guy, is with their first kill?

 

Trying to point out that anyone at anytime can snap. We are human and fallible and subject to uncountable external stimuli such as stress, sickness, chemical imbalance, environment, need,  etc. All the killers (bad guys) were once regular guys just like you and me. Then at some point, do to any one of the stimuli i mentioned earlier, made them make new choices and those choice lead to killing. Happens to be the easiest and most impersonal way to kill some one is a gun.

 

 

 

Some people who own guns might commit a murder in the future.

 

All people who own guns might commit a murder in the future.

 

And then you realize that the amount of people who own guns and have not killed someone with a gun far outnumber those who do own guns and have killed someone with a gun.

 

Using your logic we assume everyone who owns a gun is going to kill someone at some point in their life with said gun. I really don't see it. I have a large family. We've had guns in the family from the start.  Not a single one has committed murder with or without a gun. Going by your logic one of us should have killed someone by this point right?

 

Either i am saying it wrong or you are reading it incorrectly. I am saying (like I said before) that the single biggest flaw in human beings is our inability to control our actions since "we" are directly controlled by internal and external forces. You,as well as I and everyone else, could be a total different person tomorrow. Some one who could be capable and willing to murder. How many times have you read (or heard) statements from people after a murder saying things like "he was just a normal guy; he was just a regular guy; he was a good guy; i can't believe he did this; its so unlike him; he couldn't have done it; its not in his personality; no one could have seen this coming,;i don't see how he could have done this" etc etc... its because people change, people lie, people are fallible and you never know when it can happen to you or anyone you know. 

 

Does this mean we should take away guns from all gun owners, no. It just means why let people have certain guns with the huge risk/reward imbalance. Should we let your next door neighbor tinker play with nuclear device in his garage just because he is safe and knows what he is doing? No. Why? The benefit to one single person enjoying his activity vs the thousands that would die if something went wrong is NOT a good risk/reward balance. Same should go with certain firearms. The reward is just too small and the risk to others is just too high.

[Hum]

Takes all the fun outta shopping. :/

[trag3dy]

Either i am saying it wrong or you are reading it incorrectly. I am saying (like I said before) that the single biggest flaw in human beings is our inability to control our actions since "we" are directly controlled by internal and external forces. You,as well as I and everyone else, could be a total different person tomorrow. Some one who could be capable and willing to murder. How many times have you read (or heard) statements from people after a murder saying things like "he was just a normal guy; he was just a regular guy; he was a good guy; i can't believe he did this; its so unlike him; he couldn't have done it; its not in his personality; no one could have seen this coming,;i don't see how he could have done this" etc etc... its because people change, people lie, people are fallible and you never know when it can happen to you or anyone you know. 

 

Does this mean we should take away guns from all gun owners, no. It just means why let people have certain guns with the huge risk/reward imbalance. Should we let your next door neighbor tinker play with nuclear device in his garage just because he is safe and knows what he is doing? No. Why? The benefit to one single person enjoying his activity vs the thousands that would die if something went wrong is NOT a good risk/reward balance. Same should go with certain firearms. The reward is just too small and the risk to others is just too high.

 

The problem is mental illness. I don't believe that a person can be perfectly okay one day and the next decide to shoot up a school. It has to build for a long time.

 

That being said they can appear to be normal one day and the next shoot up a school.

[Rippleman]

The problem is mental illness. I don't believe that a person can be perfectly okay one day and the next decide to shoot up a school. It has to build for a long time.

 

That being said they can appear to be normal one day and the next shoot up a school.

 

ok, now do you feel it is ok for a person with mental illness (extreme or even slight) to own a small portable firearm? 

I actually know your reasonable answer is no since you are not crazy. But then if a person with metal illness should not have a firearm, and there is no way to check everyday (or every month or year for that matter) how safe is it for everyone to just own one simply because its their right too? IF reasonable people want to own reasonable weapons for reasonable reasons they should (and want) a reasonable method to filter out the people who should not have them. There is NO gun proponent that would object to a system that would be the well controlled that NO crazies would get one (unless stolen of course).

 

The actual reason of objection from anti-gun people is not the gun, its what's outcome of what's done WITH the gun. If you remove the cause/reason, the method becomes unimportant.

[Andre S. Veteran]

The problem is mental illness. I don't believe that a person can be perfectly okay one day and the next decide to shoot up a school. It has to build for a long time.

 

That being said they can appear to be normal one day and the next shoot up a school.

Many gun deaths are caused by fear or anger which are very powerful, and perfectly normal emotions. As far as I'm aware, most states in the US don't require periodic ability tests to carry a gun in public, so negligence and error play a large role as well. You don't need to be mentally ill to easily cause an unneeded death or grave injury with a gun. 

 

Or if you want to label people that could kill on impulse due to fear or anger as mentally ill, then that amounts to labeling most people as mentally ill and the end result is still that most people shouldn't be allowed to carry guns.

[trag3dy]

ok, now do you feel it is ok for a person with mental illness (extreme or even slight) to own a small portable firearm? 

I actually know your reasonable answer is no since you are not crazy. But then if a person with metal illness should not have a firearm, and there is no way to check everyday (or every month or year for that matter) how safe is it for everyone to just own one simply because its their right too? IF reasonable people want to own reasonable weapons for reasonable reasons they should (and want) a reasonable method to filter out the people who should not have them. There is NO gun proponent that would object to a system that would be the well controlled that NO crazies would get one (unless stolen of course).

 

The actual reason of objection from anti-gun people is not the gun, its what's outcome of what's done WITH the gun. If you remove the cause/reason, the method becomes unimportant.

 

Well it's already illegal for the mentally ill to own a gun, or be in possession of one. So I feel there's not much to discuss there.

 

Still, I feel like the way you're looking at things is very paranoid, though.

[xplatinum]

It's come down to bringing in Mother Jones? Yeeeep. I'm outta here.

Facts are facts. No matter who says it.

[HawkMan]

Well it's already illegal for the mentally ill to own a gun, or be in possession of one. So I feel there's not much to discuss there.

 

Still, I feel like the way you're looking at things is very paranoid, though.

 

Depends on how ill they are, and of course only if they are registered as such.

 

Nearly all of the end of the world peppers and the government are out to get us paranoid paramilitary groups living in camps with all their weapons should have been diagnosed.

[jakem1]

Many gun deaths are caused by fear or anger which are very powerful, and perfectly normal emotions. As far as I'm aware, most states in the US don't require periodic ability tests to carry a gun in public, so negligence and error play a large role as well. You don't need to be mentally ill to easily cause an unneeded death or grave injury with a gun. 

 

Or if you want to label people that could kill on impulse due to fear or anger as mentally ill, then that amounts to labeling most people as mentally ill and the end result is still that most people shouldn't be allowed to carry guns.

 

This is what the gun debate should be about.  All this talk of mental illness and massacres is nonsense designed to distract attention from the main issue.  The vast majority of gun-related murders involve one person killing another person because they are angry and/or afraid and have a gun to hand.

[Rippleman]

Well it's already illegal for the mentally ill to own a gun, or be in possession of one. So I feel there's not much to discuss there.

 

Still, I feel like the way you're looking at things is very paranoid, though.

 

you should rephrase to "its illegal for the KNOWN mentally ill to own one" since MOST cases of firearm death does NOT come from mentally ill. It comes from regular public, just like you and me who happens one day to decide, in one way or another, that killing would be an easy way to deal with something. Remember, people who have killed with a gun were not killers until they pulled the trigger. They were just like you before the act. Since you can't predict who/when/why/where anything like that will happen, why not simply remove the problem? Comes right back to the risk/reward balance. The few that would lose a hobby that would be effected with a handgun ban would EASILY be outweighed by the benefit by the masses who wouldn't be shot by handguns. 

 

side note: to me, arguing in favor of handguns is like arguing in favor of cancer. To some, it might be fun to have a survival challenge, but for almost the majority of people, its better to have it removed.

[Brian M. Veteran]

Thread closed for cleaning

Guys - please discuss this civilly.

[nekkidtruth]

The problem is mental illness. I don't believe that a person can be perfectly okay one day and the next decide to shoot up a school. It has to build for a long time.

 

That being said they can appear to be normal one day and the next shoot up a school.

 

No, this is not true.  The problem only becomes strictly mental illness once the trigger has already been pulled.  Before that, there's literally a 50/50 chance it had anything at all to do with mental illness.  That doesn't mean that there aren't those who have significant mental stability issues before hand, just that it's nearly impossible to know as people are extremely good at hiding said stability issues.  Anyone remember the old man at the gas station who blew a kid away because his music was too loud?  It's been a while, but if my memory serves me right, there were no signs of mental illness prior.

 

Mental illness is a huge problem, not just in the U.S.  However, it is not the only reason people shoot people.  In fact, to me it's nearly a cop out since it's so ridiculously easy to say "Hey!  I have mental issues!" once you've committed a crime.  Not just shooting.

[CrossCheck]

silliest reason to do something EVER.

how is this the silliest reason ever. just like me you post on here because you can

[CrossCheck]

Since nothing that the anti-gun people in this thread and the pro-gun people are posting is gonna change anyones beliefs or reasons for owning and not owning a gun. this thread and future threads should be banned

 

 

The restrictions in place in Canada are a start, I certainly don't find them perfect.

 

Yes, of course it's a mental health issue.  The problem is, anyone at any time can have "mental health issues" for a myriad of different reasons.  That's why no one should have access to guns.  Especially so in a civilian capacity.  But that's all really besides the point.  The fact of the matter is, every day way too many people die in the U.S. because of guns and until a long term solution can be found, the only logical solution would be to limit access to said guns.  If that means temporarily banning them, so be it.  The problem though is, gun owners want an all-or-nothing solution.  Completely unwilling to compromise.  Every time long term or short term solutions are suggested, the absurd comparisons, absurd scenarios and lame excuses start.

 

 

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

this is why we have the 2nd amendment and it should never change,  Along with every other amendment in our constitution. one we start letting them repeal amendments, especially the 2nd amendment. Then the U.S. will be lost.  We might as well become a police state oppressed by our government.

 

What the U.S. needs is stiffer punishment for gun related crimes.

[FloatingFatMan]

We might as well become a police state oppressed by our government.

 

 

Too late...

[Alera]

Since nothing that the anti-gun people in this thread and the pro-gun people are posting is gonna change anyones beliefs or reasons for owning and not owning a gun. this thread and future threads should be banned

 

 

 

this is why we have the 2nd amendment and it should never change,  Along with every other amendment in our constitution. one we start letting them repeal amendments, especially the 2nd amendment. Then the U.S. will be lost.  We might as well become a police state oppressed by our government.

 

What the U.S. needs is stiffer punishment for gun related crimes.

 

If you really think that if the average gun owner owning 7.9 guns is going to stop the US Government from abusing it's power against it's own citizens is really going to happen, you need to get your head checked.

 

The NSA and other agencies around the world are showing exactly how much of a police state is possible in this day and age, nothing is truly free and liberty doesn't exist when your every action can be logged and put into a database. There are even apparently the capabilities to predict where you will be using data gathered over weeks of your daily routines.

 

Personally I don't think it's right for anyone to walk into a shop with a rifle, why a rifle? Do you really need one? No you don't, you're just doing it because you can and because hey, I have the right! Well sometimes your rights don't need to be exercised, just because you have free speech or freedom of expression does not mean you should abuse it. That's all I see, abuse of a right in the face of others with rights.

 

If you really want to carry a loaded weapon, why can't you conceal it? At least then nobody will complain and you can feel "safe" without scaring other people.

[Vykranth]

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

 

this is why we have the 2nd amendment and it should never change,  Along with every other amendment in our constitution. one we start letting them repeal amendments, especially the 2nd amendment. Then the U.S. will be lost.  We might as well become a police state oppressed by our government.

 

The US constitution has been changed several times: the procedures are in place for that: amendment for the prohibition, amendment for slavery

In 1776, for 13 small states, without any standing army and after having gained the independence for a major colonial power and potentially being too weak to stand against other colonial powers, the 2nd amendment made sense.

 

Now, in 2014, with the truckload of billions of dollars invested in its standing armies, which country can invade the US?

But, I'll bite. Let's the evil country of Fantasykistan invade the US, do you really think that civilian with their AR-15 or AK replicas stand a chance? To invade the US, the armies of Fantasykistan had defeated a dozen carrier groups, countless aircrafts/tanks/helicopters and soldiers. 

Do you think one will be able to take his guns to the wilderness and harass the invaders with some sort of resistance movement? If Fantasykistan has already invaded the US, you can bet they would not do things half-baked: any resistance fighters caught would be tortured and executed, any Fantasykistan soldiers death would be retaliated by the execution of 10 random US civilians.

 

As far as the US government is concerned, I find it that it is showing a little too much of restrain: the criminal Cliven Bundy should be in prison as far as I see it

 

Besides, what is the need of a well-regulated militia when going to a Target? I have been in Target several times: it is a shopping center, not a warzone

[KingCracker]

Legality has sod all to do with it, Doc, and you know that.

 

If I were to see a group of folks like in your photo carrying those sort of weapons, I -would- be afraid, and I -would- leave the area rapidly, and I -would- call the cops.

 

Legality be damned, there's such a thing as actually having a brain and a little consideration, and not scaring the crap out of folks around you just because you want to wave your wang-substitute around.

You would but I wouldn't. You come from a different country a different mindset. I see guns all the time carried by strangers I don't go running for cover or call the cops much less be afraid of them.

[FloatingFatMan]

You would but I wouldn't. You come from a different country a different mindset. I see guns all the time carried by strangers I don't go running for cover or call the cops much less be afraid of them.

 

There are plenty of American's who would react similarly,

[Wyn6]

There are plenty of American's who would react similarly,

Count me among them. And, I live in Texas. If I'm in a Target or Chipotle and an AR-15 carrying individual strolls in, I'm out AND I'm calling the cops. I have no idea what this individual is about to do and I can guarantee my first thought won't be, "Oh. He's just exercising his 2nd Amendment rights."

 

I won't immediately draw my gun or anything like that, but best believe my hand will be near it. But, how long before some John Wayne wannabe does draw their weapon and fire at one of these open carry people? It's only a matter of time.

[FloatingFatMan]

I won't immediately draw my gun or anything like that, but best believe my hand will be near it. But, how long before some John Wayne wannabe does draw their weapon and fire at one of these open carry people? It's only a matter of time.

 

Yep, it will happen eventually, and when it does, the idiot with the rifle will have no one to blame but themselves.

[KingCracker]

Well count me NOT one of them. Guns don't scare me. Dangerous objects don't scare me. If I was really worried about my safety here I wouldn't drive a car because  im more likely to get killed by an idiot driving a car than someone carrying a gun. I see people open carrying all the time it doesn't make me want to call 911 and over react. 

[DocM]

Because she CAN, silly! It's perfectly legal for her to walk around with a mag slotted, her finger on the trigger, and the rifle held ready to blow anyone and everyone away! She's not a threat to anyone like that, she's just exercising her second amendment rights!

Not to mention her Michigan Open Carry rights. Been legal for decades. Would you demonstrate if your core rights were infringed? In such a way as to mock the violation? That's what that demonstration was about.

Alternate reality: if Windsor Ontario started arresting women for going topless, which is legal there, you can bet there'd be 500 topless women at the steps of City Hall. Along with me and a camera ;)

Context, grasshopper, context.

Or at least, that's what certain people here will tell you, anyway... :rolleyes: Personally, i think she's being a ridiculous a-hole, like the rest of them, and has zero consideration for anyone but herself.

People have the right to be ridiculous a-holes. If they didn't half of neowin would be in prison.

First, I don't so much live in fear so much as I believe in being prepared. Old Boy Scout. Being prepared for eventualities isn't anything more than a survival skill. Especially around Detroit, Chicago, Oakland, East St. Louis etc. and within 100 miles of the Mexican border.

I carry a flashlight in case I need it during an outage. Not afraid of the dark, just not a fan of falling on my face.

I carry a Leatherman in case I need its tools or pliers. I'm not afraid of a stuck nut or screw.

I carry my firearm because its prudent given the population of 2 legged predators in these parts, and their tendency to kill, or nearly kill, people.

I carry a spare mag because they travel in packs.

etc.

Remember the guy in Detroit who was beaten near to death by a mob. He was saved by a nurse who carries a revolver. Do you think a "pretty please" or swinging her purse would have saved him? If so, I have this bridge in Brooklyn.....

Such defensive uses happen about 1-2.5 million times a year according to the FBI and other researchers. Rarely do they require firing, but when they do a pea shooter isn't usually effective. As such, many of us carry large caliber weapons.

As to the demonstrations,

Most of them ARE silly, but not all. You can't lump the one in Michigan where the local authorities clearly violated the law, and were admonished by a judge and lost a lawsuit, with spontaneous demonstrations for no damned reason. See my first paragraph.

[Rippleman]

Not to mention her Michigan Open Carry rights. Been legal for decades. Would you demonstrate if your core rights were infringed? In such a way as to mock the violation?

 

It is also her right to wear her clothes backwards and inside out, but... i don't see her doing that... why not?

 

and which core rights of hers are being infringed on?

 

You guys REALLY REALLY REALLY need a new hobby.

[Skiver Veteran]

It is also her right to wear her clothes backwards and inside out, but... i don't see her doing that... why not?

 

and which core rights of hers are being infringed on?

 

You guys REALLY REALLY REALLY need a new hobby.

 

I have to agree as i said earlier, just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

 

It's like certain places having a dress code, should there be a protest because its against my rights for someone to tell me what to wear?