How ironic the DU members, who tend to HATE gun toters, are now defending the gun toting mom!

[Logical]

So the DU is defending the gun toting mom, as am I, because she fired a warning shot to stop her abusive husband. I think she was trying to scare him. I understand her logic.

But she was a gun toter. Which this forum tends to HATE. And insult. And make fun of.

It just amazes me they are defending her gun toting. What an amazing twist! Double standard I guess.

[gejohnston]

1. what mom are you refering to?

It is ironic, but ideology and hypocrisy go together like peas and carrots.

[RobertEarl]

2. Your thinking is illogical

And dense. Which means you have an agenda. A poorly concocted and illogical agenda for DU. Might fly at freeperville, tho?

Anyway, 20 years for a warning shot is ridiculous and you should know that. That's what, imo, DUers think. Why don't you? If you did think that way, isn't that what your OP would state?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

3. You are missing the point

The OP is pointing out the hypocrisy of some of the anti gun crowd that are active in this group. It is indeed amusing.

[RobertEarl]

4. I know what the point is

It is a broad brush attack against a whole group of people using an illogical and dense thought pattern. IOW, FAIL!

You use a smaller brush - "some" - but still is illogical and dense all the same. Do you do that to make yourself feel better, or what?

[Logical]

7. So you agree the woman should of had a gun to defend herself??

[RobertEarl]

9. Illogical question

She should not have gotten a 20 year sentence, right?

[Logical]

11. Answer my question. Now!

[RobertEarl]

12. How can you be so illogical?

You have the moniker "Logical" why do you act so illogical?

I am just going to ignore you until such time as you become logical.
That's a logical stance, right?

[Logical]

13. Like I said, quit dodging the question. You are 100% proving my point. Thanks!

[GreenStormCloud]

40. What shoud her sentence have been? N/T

[Control-Z]

15. Should HAVE had,

not of had. Geez.

[Logical]

16. LOL..... grammar police! I love it. Getting angry I assume.

[Control-Z]

17. Yup.

Last edited Sat May 12, 2012, 07:00 PM - Edit history (1)

You've pissed me off. My reply is at the bottom of the thread.

I'm sure you will get around to reading, if not responding, to it eventually.

[Clames]

62. You should learn to stop swinging you own mop around...

...before asking others to use a smaller brush. Forget the mop, you should stop using the bucket.

[DanTex]

5. Uh, no.

What I think, and I think most DUers and progressives generally agree with is:
A) gun laws in the US should be tighter, because it would save lives.
B) 20 years for a warning shot at an abusive husband is too much.
I don't see any contradiction.

I do see yet another situation that would have turned out better without a gun.

[Logical]

8. OK, answer this.....

A. What does "gun laws should be tighter" mean? This will be interesting.

B. The Anti's think guns are evil. Why is 20 years too much? Why did she need a gun?

[DanTex]

19. Are you just here to insult people? Do you want to try reading my post and forming a coherent reply?

[Logical]

25. How did I insult you? n-t

[DanTex]

30. Not me specifically, so much as "Anti's" in general.

You want to paint supporters of gun control as irrational "Anti's" who hate guns. And that's why you ignored my point: believing we need tighter gun laws, and thinking 20 years is too much for a warning shot at an abusive husband, are in no way inconsistent.

Do you care to address it this time around? This should be interesting...

[gejohnston]

37. I think the charge was

brandishing and assault. Her jail term was typical for Florida, mandatory min. etc. Not saying I agree with it, just saying what seems to be the case. Warning shots are usually a bad idea for a number of reasons, like the bullet hitting an innocent someplace else.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10-20-Life
Her life was in danger, she should have just shot him.

[DanTex]

39. Do you think 20 years was appropriate?

The fact that it's a mandatory minimum doesn't mean it's a just penalty. And my main point is that thinking 20 years is excessive is in no way inconsistent with thinking we need tighter gun laws.

I agree that warning shots are usually a bad idea. In fact, a loaded gun outside of a shooting range or hunting grounds is usually a bad idea...

[gejohnston]

43. no, I do not.

Last edited Sat May 12, 2012, 09:17 PM - Edit history (1)

I am against all mandatory minimum laws as a rule. I think it should have been written off as self defense the same as if she aimed it and he became wiser.

In fact, a loaded gun outside of a shooting range or hunting grounds is usually a bad idea...

I actually agree with you to some degree. Where I grew up, we never kept our guns loaded. We never locked our doors either. If it isn't on your person, it should be in something like this. Some are the price of a couple boxes of shells, to a couple of hundred bucks.

[Logical]

59. Once again, like I ask ALL the antis and never get a realistic answer, how....

do you plan on tightening gun laws? Details please.

[DanTex]

60. You're missing the point.

Being in favor of tighter gun laws is not inconsistent with thinking 20 years is too long a sentence. That's all I'm trying to say.

In your OP, you accused "Antis" of a double standard. I'm saying this is nonsense. And rather than defend the accusation in the OP, you're changing the subject, asking me for a detailed policy proposal. But this OP isn't about gun policy.

You're running away from your OP. You don't actually have any intelligent point to make, you just want to insult "Antis".

[Logical]

61. It is easy to understand......

Most anti-gun people here complain about gun toters and people having the need to carry a gun. But this Woman did both. She carried a gun and toted it.

Very seldom if ever do the anti-gun crowd admit guns have a purpose in the hands of citizens.

But in this case they seem to think this woman was justified. Not just sentenced too long but had a reason to use the gun.

Now, lets here your plan for gun control. Or do you not really have anything?

[Hoyt]

23. Actually, most don't think guns are "evil," but not so sure about those attracted to the dang things

[spin]

18. I would like to see our current gun laws improved ...

and in that sense I might agree that such laws should be "tighter".

For example, I agree with President Obama's views on gun control ...

President Obama: We must seek agreement on gun reforms
President Barack Obama Special To The Arizona Daily Star | Posted: Sunday, March 13, 2011 12:00 am

***snip***

First, we should begin by enforcing laws that are already on the books. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System is the filter that's supposed to stop the wrong people from getting their hands on a gun. Bipartisan legislation four years ago was supposed to strengthen this system, but it hasn't been properly implemented. It relies on data supplied by states - but that data is often incomplete and inadequate. We must do better.

• Second, we should in fact reward the states that provide the best data - and therefore do the most to protect our citizens.

• Third, we should make the system faster and nimbler. We should provide an instant, accurate, comprehensive and consistent system for background checks to sellers who want to do the right thing, and make sure that criminals can't escape it.

***snip***

But I have more faith in the American people than that. Most gun-control advocates know that most gun owners are responsible citizens. Most gun owners know that the word "commonsense" isn't a code word for "confiscation." And none of us should be willing to remain passive in the face of violence or resigned to watching helplessly as another rampage unfolds on television.

Read more: http://azstarnet.com/news/opinion/mailbag/president-obama-we-must-seek-agreement-on-gun-reforms/article_011e7118-8951-5206-a878-39bfbc9dc89d.html#ixzz1ugvGWsad

I suspect that you wish to impose far more restrictions than what President Obama has suggested.

Perhaps you could list the improvements that you would like to see implemented.

[DanTex]

24. For starters, registration and licensing for handguns.

Also limits on magazine capacities. But, honestly, I don't know exactly what the "right" gun laws are. I know that the current laws aren't strong enough -- this is pretty obvious. And I know that every other developed nation besides the US is doing a much better job than we are.

The problem is that the gun policy in the US is basically driven by the right-wing crazies at the NRA, rather than any kind of rational concern for public safety.

[hack89]

26. Why is it obvious?

what has been the actual impact historic levels of gun ownership? What has changed in the past 30 years that requires tighter gun laws?

[DanTex]

29. We've needed tighter gun laws for 30 years. This isn't a recent development.

And it's obvious because we have far more gun violence than any other developed nation. We can do better.

[hack89]

31. Is the point of gun control laws to reduce gun violence?

Isn't that what has happened?

[DanTex]

33. Gee, that's a good argument!

[hack89]

34. Are you saying gun violence has not been reduced?

or that gun control laws have nothing to do with reducing gun violence?

You can be honest - you just don't trust your fellow Americans. You don't care about stats and rates and trends. What ever they are and where ever they are heading is irrelevant. More control is all you care about.

[DanTex]

36. What are you talking about?

[friendly_iconoclast]

49. You appear to want stronger laws, without saying exactly why or what they are supposed to do.

I don't know exactly what the "right" gun laws are. I know that the current laws aren't strong enough -- this is pretty obvious.

[spin]

42. I fail to see how your ideas would change anything ...

Firearm registration in Canada has proved to be a failure. If it doesn't work in Canada, why would we want to try it in the United States? The only reason I can see is to harass honest gun owners.

Long Gun Registry scrapped: Bill C-19 becomes law
4/13/2012

Selkirk, Manitoba-James Bezan, Member of Parliament for Selkirk-Interlake, made the following statement after the Senate passed Bill C-19, Ending the Long Gun Registry Act and was proclaimed into law:

“I am proud to say that after 17 years of the discriminatory and unfair long-gun registry has finally come to an end. Our Conservative government has always stood with law-abiding Canadians and never believed in making honest farmers, hunters and rural Canadians into criminals. I’d like to extend my gratitude to the Senate for passing this legislation."

"Our government will continue to uphold our commitment to effective gun control measures that keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and off our streets. We have successfully introduced legislation that fights gang crime, drug crime, violent and repeat offenders. Our reforms are concrete steps to tackle real crime and real criminals.”

***snip***

"The Government will begin implementation of the legislation. Long-gun owners will no longer be required to register their firearms, and the process of destroying the data in the registry related to non-restricted firearms will begin as soon as feasible."
http://www.jamesbezan.com/news.asp?newsID=2094

You other idea of limiting magazine size also would accomplish little as with practice an individual can swap out a magazine in less than 2 seconds. In fact, high capacity magazines often cause firearms to jam where smaller magazines feed far more reliably.

While it is true that the NRA sponsors many many gun laws that those who oppose firearm ownership disagree with, it should be pointed out that if the majority of citizens disliked the laws they could elect representatives who would repeal them. Name just one state that has repealed "shall issue" concealed carry, castle doctrine, stand your ground or take your gun to work laws after they were passed.

[DanTex]

46. A press release from a Conservative MP in Canada? That's your "evidence" against registration?

What next, a Michelle Bachman press release about how we should ban gay marriage? A Paul Ryan press release about how we need to privatize social security?

[spin]

54. Try this article, it may be more to your taste ...

However the fact remains that gun registration in Canada has been repealed.

Long gun data loss will hurt investigations, RCMP says
Registry loss could hamper international treaty compliance, document says
The Canadian Press
Posted: Apr 13, 2012 8:33 AM ET
Last Updated: Apr 13, 2012 10:54 AM ET

As it prepares to destroy millions of long gun records, the RCMP says the Conservative government's decision to scrap the registry will make it tougher to trace firearms used to commit crimes.

The process that will lead to deletion of rifle and shotgun records in the registry is under way – with the exception of Quebec files at the centre of a court action, said Cpl. Laurence Trottier, an RCMP spokeswoman.

***snip***

Recently passed legislation ended registration of most long guns and directed the RCMP to permanently destroy more than seven million files on firearm ownership. This includes deletion of computer files as well as any relevant paper records.emphasis added
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2012/04/13/police-long-gun-registry-destruction-data.html

The fact remains that your idea of gun registration failed in Canada. Why would it work in the United States?

[DanTex]

55. Yes, I know it's been repealed. Conservatives do dumb things, even in Canada.

First of all, registration was only repealed for long guns. Handguns are still very tightly regulated in Canada, and my understanding is that you still need a licence for a handgun, and handguns still must be registered (someone correct me if I'm wrong). And, the handgun laws in Canada have been very successful. Gun violence in Canada is much lower than in the US.

Also, the fact that the long gun registry was repealed doesn't mean it was a failure. In fact, as this last article you cited points out, "the RCMP says the Conservative government's decision to scrap the registry will make it tougher to trace firearms used to commit crimes". Apparently the RCMP disagrees with you and the Conservative party on this.

[TPaine7]

56. Wow!

And, the handgun laws in Canada have been very successful. Gun violence in Canada is much lower than in the US.

Am I understanding this right:

1) Canada has different gun laws than the US, like registration of handguns.
2) Canada has less gun violence than the US.
3) THEREFORE, Canadian gun laws have been successful as they account for the difference.

Really?!!!

[gejohnston]

58. you need a license for all firearms.

there are three types. Unrestricted, restricted, and prohibited. There is also a minor's permit that allows 12-18 year olds to possess (but not buy. Must be 18 to buy long guns or handguns) unrestricted guns and buy rifle and shotgun ammunition.
Ending the registry was only about unrestricted long guns, but not restricted long guns.
All restricted and prohibited firearms are still registered (or rather, are required to be). Most handguns and some rifles are restricted.
Prohibited are guns that have been banned but grandfathered, like pre 1977 machine guns for example.
Their handgun violence was just as low before the 1934 handgun registry. Their machine gun violence was just as low before their 1952 machine gun registry (according to Canadian gun collectors I know, it seems their machine gun laws were laxer than ours until 1977.) A long gun registry existed from 1940-1946.


As for the RCMP flack, how many guns were actually traced, and given the level of non compliance, did it really work that well?

[Clames]

63. "...will make it tougher to trace firearms used to commit crimes".

Which is absolute and total crap. There was nothing in the legislation that made it easier in the first place.

[GreenStormCloud]

45. What would those accomplish?

Cho's magazines were all standadrd mags as was the Luby's shooter. They simply quickly swapped mags when they were empty. Large capacity mags have a tendency to jam. Multiple standard mags are much more reliable. I would rather a criminal us less reliable gear.

What does registration accomplish? Registration lists have been transformed into confiscation lists in New York and in California, so you will have a hard time getting firearms owners to trust you with such a list.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

6. DUers are famous for their Pretzel Logic and twisted thinking so that they might

bend the facts to suit their emotions. Never let the facts get in the way of a good rant.

[richmwill]

10. I don't hate gun toters

I know that makes me a minority here, but as long as they're used responsibly I have no issue with them.

[spin]

21. You might be surprised to find that you are not in the minority ...

Plenty of Democrats support the Second Amendment and while some favor far more restrictions on gun ownership than we have today, I don't believe that many actually "hate" gun owners.

You probably would be in the minority of DU posters if you truly hate gun owners.

[DanTex]

27. Nobody here "hates" gun toters.

That's just a straw argument presented by the NRA crowd. Most DUers and progressives do support stronger gun laws, which the NRA crowd construes as "bigotry" and "hatred" towards gun owners.

[gejohnston]

28. most do not

but I would not say "nobody". I can think of a couple around here. I view negative stereotypes as expressing bigotry.

[DanTex]

32. In that case, there's plenty of "bigotry" here towards people who favor sane gun laws...

Does that bother you much?

[gejohnston]

35. Bigotry in all forms bother me

I have seen fewer negative stereotypes of "antis". Bigotry in all forms bother me, but some on both sides read from absurd talking points. The pros on the right do it, but not so much pros on the left. Antis on the left and right both do it. I will say right wing antis are more racist.

Define sane. I think Czech Republic and Bulgaria laws are more sane than DC. Vermont and Wyoming must have sane gun laws because of their low murder rate.

[DanTex]

51. It doesn't really seem to.

According to your definition, negative stereotypes express bigotry. And yet, I've never see you chide a pro-gunner for suggesting that "antis" are against "freedom" or "civil rights", an obviously negative stereotype. In fact, if you look upthread, you'll see me being accused of "not trusting my fellow Americans" and that "more control is all (I) want", another common negative stereotype of "antis", that they aren't sincere about their concern for saving lives and just want to control people.

And the OP suggests that antis "HATE" guns -- a stereotype which is clearly negative, as it implies irrationality and meanness.

Looks to me like you're only concerned about faux bigotry when it's aligned with certain political viewpoints.

[gejohnston]

53. Have I chided any antis?

In fact, if you look upthread, you'll see me being accused of "not trusting my fellow Americans" and that "more control is all (I) want", another common negative stereotype of "antis", that they aren't sincere about their concern for saving lives and just want to control people.

Well, do you? People are motivated by different things. They can agree on something for different reasons. Most "antis" I think do sincerely think some or a lot of social good will come from gun laws. You seem to be in that camp (I would also put Thom Hartmann and Ed Schultz in that camp as well, but I don't think either of them would be described as an "anti".) Some are authoritarians. Some really do hate guns. I'm not going to sit and make a list of every anti and which list I think they are on.

[Control-Z]

14. I vote this the most

ridiculous OP ever written on DU3.

A terrible self defense law in the first place, does not apply when it is an abusive man who threatens to kill a woman/his wife/girlfriend/baby mama and she defends herself, actually just warns that she will, and hurts no one but she is sentenced to 20 years in prison? And let's not forget her skin color. This law, that is in place as a self defense mechanism, only applies to men with the approved skin color?

Are you joking? Or just trying to start a fight? The only double standard here involves gender and race. Let me guess? You're a gun toting dude?

Every DU member should be up in arms (pardon the expression) over this misogynistic, racist attack on a woman, defenseless in her own home with no laws in place to protect her. As should every gun nut who packs a gun and defends these stand your ground laws. If you're not you don't belong here.

[gejohnston]

20. If I may

A terrible self defense law in the first place, does not apply when it is an abusive man who threatens to kill a woman/his wife/girlfriend/baby mama and she defends herself, actually just warns that she will, and hurts no one but she is sentenced to 20 years in prison? And let's not forget her skin color. This law, that is in place as a self defense mechanism, only applies to men with the approved skin color?

The law that it replaced was worse in many ways. Florida's pretrial hearing system is flawed like everything else. The judge could be a racist, and ideologue (like Ramsey Clark who believed self defense should be banned), or just a dim wit.
In this case, if she shot him instead of firing a warning shot, she might have been OK. If nothing else, there would be one less misogynistic asshole in the world.
Warning shots are illegal for various reason. One being if you have the luxury of firing one, the threat was not that great. Legally, it becomes assault and brandishing. If the bad guy backs off before you pull the trigger or just from seeing the laser spot touching him, great. If you pull the trigger, it should only be at the target needs to be hit. On the more utilitarian level, warning shots in the air can land on innocents miles away, which is why I supported the one bill Scott signed cracking down on dumb assess who shoot in the air on New Years.

Every DU member should be up in arms (pardon the expression) over this misogynistic, racist attack on a woman, defenseless in her own home with no laws in place to protect her. As should every gun nut who packs a gun and defends these stand your ground laws. If you're not you don't belong here.

The DA is the same person prosecuting Zimmerman. The lady should have just shot his ass. If you disagree with that, sorry.

[Control-Z]

41. Yes, she probably

should have shot the bastard. As you put it: "If nothing else, there would be one less misogynistic asshole in the world."

...cracking down on dumb assess who shoot in the air on New Years."

is yet another law that fails to protect women. There is not a soul who believes she was shooting in the air for fun.

And I believe most women think a bit differently than gun loving men, especially abused women. She probably weighed all the options in a split second and made the decision to try to save all their lives by firing the warning shot to let him know she was serious. I don't know many women who would just shoot the man who fathered their child if trying something less violent/permanent might decompress the situation. Again, I repeat, especially when it comes to abused women.

When we've been battered so many prior times and lived through it, there are always questions. How bad will it be this time? Will this be the time he actually succeeds and kills me? Or will he only crack my skull open like he did the last time? It took my first husband actually hitting my little baby's hands (because she was in my arms holding me tight and there was no way to turn without exposing some part of her) for me to run out the door and get away on a plane. Had there been a gun? I don't know that I could have shot him for threatening just me. For my daughter, quite probably. But if I thought a warning shot would save us all, no matter what the laws, I would probably have tried it.

How ridiculous is it to even think I should kill someone when there might be a safer option? Besides, most of the women I've heard about, who do kill their abusers, end up with long prison sentences. It's a lose/lose for most women. And for minority women it seems they lose every time.

Stand Your ground laws are for men with the right skin tone.
For most everyone else they're more like Stand No Chance laws.

[gejohnston]

47. I agree with you except for one thing

Duty to Retreat laws were no better as far as discrimination goes. It does remove the option. SYG does not make it illegal to retreat.
Where I grew up (as soon as I can convince the wife, I'll be going back to) both men and women like guns and hunting etc to the same degree.

[Control-Z]

48. I think you might agree that

this has nothing to do with liking guns for sport/hunting.

Unless hunting and/or intimidating people happens to be your (not yours, personally) sport.

[gejohnston]

50. We agree on that nt.

[Control-Z]

52. This has been a nice,

civil, conversation. Thanks for that.

[Hoyt]

22. She was in her house, not strutting around public streets with a gun like many here like to do.

[Control-Z]

44. Exactly.

She was not the "gun toting mom" the OP tries to make her out to be.

[Johnny Rico]

38. If in fear for your life don't shoot to warn, shoot to stop.

This should normally involve a double-tap to the center of mass.

[oneshooter]

57. And that, applied correctly, would have been all the warning he needed.