FOOD FOR THOUGHT AND DUMB GUN LAWS

Status
Not open for further replies.
Date sort Score sort
Manic J said:
Hi mom'sfolly,
I cannot contest your info on the comparison of crimes between the UK and the USA without some more time researching the subject.

But, I can speak on the definition of assault. There needs to be no injury in the USA, just a perception, or a fear of such. A charge of assault can even be brought from unwanted or offensive contact. Example; spitting ... gross and disgusting, yes, injurious, no. Here is an excerpt from .. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/assault it is easy to confuse assault with battery.

Statutory definitions of assault in the various jurisdictions throughout the United States are not substantially different from the common-law definition.
Elements:
Generally, the essential elements of assault consist of an act intended to cause an apprehension of harmful or offensive contact that causes apprehension of such contact in the victim.
The act required for an assault must be overt. Although words alone are insufficient, they might create an assault when coupled with some action that indicates the ability to carry out the threat. A mere threat to harm is not an assault; however, a threat combined with a raised fist might be sufficient if it causes a reasonable apprehension of harm in the victim.
Intent is an essential element of assault. In tort law, it can be specific intent—if the assailant intends to cause the apprehension of harmful or offensive contact in the victim—or general intent—if he or she intends to do the act that causes such apprehension. In addition, the intent element is satisfied if it is substantially certain, to a reasonable person, that the act will cause the result. A defendant who holds a gun to a victim's head possesses the requisite intent, since it is substantially certain that this act will produce an apprehension in the victim. In all cases, intent to kill or harm is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
actually, many jurisdictions have what is called "simple assault" where, yes, just words can be enough to get you convicted. In AR, calling someone a "witch" is enough to get you arrested for simple assault if the words are said "in anger" (Personally, I'm usually angry if I've reached the point of cussing someone out!)
Though, yes, the definitions you posted are exactly right!
 
About disability...I specifically said if a person is so disabled they cannot load a gun, they are also LIKELY to be so disabled they could not safely use a gun.

I know quite a few people with disabilities who hunt. They also have no problem loading, or controlling their gun.

I also in no way disparaged anyone's service to this country, nor would I ever.
 
Last edited:
mom'sfolly said:
About disability...I specifically said if a person is so disabled they cannot load a gun, they are also LIKELY to be so disabled they could not safely use a gun.

I know quite a few people with disabilities who hunt. They also have no problem loading, or controlling their gun.

I also in no way disparaged anyone's service to this country, nor would I ever.
Click to expand...

I am so disabled that it is hard for me to load an I was the one that said I use a AR an those clips cause it is easier for me. You dont know what you are talking about an you are still being insulting.
 
MamaRoo said:
For those of you that support armed guards in schools:

Armed guards at private events?
http://www.mcall.com/news/breaking/mc-four-dead-pa-shooting-20121221,0,1261339.story

Armed guards at house fires?
http://abcnews.go.com/US/firefighte...-ny-house-fire/story?id=18055594#.UNh_uazNmSo
Click to expand...

Which is why I do not support armed guards, I support allowing teachers and school staff to carry. It costs nothing to any level of government, and you're putting the seed of doubt into any would-be shooter. Armed guards are a known quantity - the shooter is likely to know their habits, where they're stationed, and how many there are. They cost lots of money, so there can only be so many. Armed teachers and school staff, on the other hand... you never know, and it means that there is likely to be someone armed at the place a would-be gunman begins shooting. There are literally *no* cons to this idea, even if it ends up accomplishing nothing.
 
Q9 said:
Which is why I do not support armed guards, I support allowing teachers and school staff to carry. It costs nothing to any level of government, and you're putting the seed of doubt into any would-be shooter. Armed guards are a known quantity - the shooter is likely to know their habits, where they're stationed, and how many there are. They cost lots of money, so there can only be so many. Armed teachers and school staff, on the other hand... you never know, and it means that there is likely to be someone armed at the place a would-be gunman begins shooting. There are literally *no* cons to this idea, even if it ends up accomplishing nothing.
Click to expand...
This is interesting. I caught the tail end of a piece on NPR, so I can't tell you the situation, but I believe it was someone who had been involved in a shooting. He said it took 8 seconds for the (guard? police?) to reach the shooter, and in those 8 seconds the shooter killed several people. I'm envisioning the schools on my town - long buildings, many with separated buildings - a single guard wouldn't be much help. The assumption that a teacher is qualified (or would want) to carry a weapon is also a stretch for me. They are just people, as flawed as anyone, with bad days and hangovers and breakups and all the crazy things that happen in a person's life that might lead them to choose to take a firearm (if it's available) and do harm to themselves or others.

Also, are the guns stored in the school? Taken home? Who checks to make sure they're properly stored? And if they are properly stored, could they be retrieved quickly enough to make a difference?
What about that 1 careless moment at recess when the gun is left in the desk and a child finds it? Or the bad kid of the school makes a determined effort to steal the gun? Or the bullets? (they can be used to make great explosives with some cardboard and duct tape)

You're thinking that the people carrying the weapons will have your mindset, I'm thinking that these people have a lot of crap to deal with already, and may not be the best choice to deliberately arm.
 
One argument for the 2nd is to test the worthiness of the other rights and the whole constitution and its ability to protect the liberties it provides the framer knew this right would be infringed upon when they put it second in line it was by no accident
 
Last edited:
The presidents armed guards are with him.

Schools are huge places, and the cops still have to get from one end to another.

Specious arguments:

Bows were the assault rifles of their time

Regulating guns is against the second amendment

The pope, the president and movie stars have armed guards

Everyone should be as well armed as the military.

As for arming teachers...of all the teachers I know, I can't think of a single one that would be willing to carry at school.
 
If armed guards really are the solution maybe we should bring the boys home from Afghanistan and put a couple in each school. The school won't have to worry about the budget and adding another name to the payroll and both the students and the soldiers will be much less likely to be killed. I'm still not sure if I'm really sold on the armed guards idea. We'll see.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Right On Reds
For New York City Chicken Folk/Animal Folk Important!!!!!
Replies
6
Views
2K
Right On Reds
Right On Reds

New posts New threads Active threads

Back
Top Bottom