Las Vegas mass shooting

[Enhance]

12 minutes ago, saunders45 said:

I don’t know, as I’m in Florida. My understanding is that most states have some form of a castle doctrine, so once an intruder is in your house, all bets are off. But, I honestly haven’t researched it outside of my own state.

After doing a quick Google search it appears no - Nebraska does not have a castle doctrine and lethal force as a self-defense is only allowed as a last resort. It's also only allowed for protecting people. Protecting your property is not covered.

[BigRedBuster]

The entire "now is not the time to talk about it" mantra reminds me of....being a guy.

 

When my wife really wants to talk to me about something really uncomfortable in our relationship, my first response is....not right now.  Fact is, there is never a "good time" to talk about these types of things.  Putting it off till it is a good time is nothing more than trying to get out of talking about it at all.

 

The conversation needs to be forced and there isn't a better time than now.

[Fru]

https://twitter.com/SarcasticRover/status/914876425785679872

 

[ColoradoHusk]

I saw this on Twitter, but I liked it.  Many of the people who preach the 2nd amendment and the right to bear arms against a military or police uprising are the same people who say that we need to respect and obey the military and the police.

[BigRedBuster]

6 minutes ago, ColoradoHusk said:

I saw this on Twitter, but I liked it.  Many of the people who preach the 2nd amendment and the right to bear arms against a military or police uprising are the same people who say that we need to respect and obey the military and the police.

 

 

Things that make you go Hmmmmm......

[Fru]

13 minutes ago, ColoradoHusk said:

I saw this on Twitter, but I liked it.  Many of the people who preach the 2nd amendment and the right to bear arms against a military or police uprising are the same people who say that we need to respect and obey the military and the police.

 

In that vain, many of the people who preach the 2nd Amendment in the wake of dozens of people being injured and murdered are also the people that claim to be 100% Pro Life. 

[Saunders]

1 hour ago, Enhance said:

After doing a quick Google search it appears no - Nebraska does not have a castle doctrine and lethal force as a self-defense is only allowed as a last resort. It's also only allowed for protecting people. Protecting your property is not covered.

Yeah, it's here:

 

http://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=28-1409

 

If they're in your house, it seems that there is no duty to retreat, which makes sense.

[TGHusker]

2 hours ago, Enhance said:

After doing a quick Google search it appears no - Nebraska does not have a castle doctrine and lethal force as a self-defense is only allowed as a last resort. It's also only allowed for protecting people. Protecting your property is not covered.

There can be a very fine line between protection of self and protection of stuff.  It becomes a judgement call on behalf of the homeowner and then it becomes a judgement call on behalf of the DA, Judge and Jury.

[RedDenver]

4 hours ago, saunders45 said:

I just wanted to chime in that bullets don't work like the movies. Even if you're able to hit your target with all 6 rounds, that's not a guarantee to stop them. And then there's theproblem of hitting a moving target in a high stress situation. It's hard. Like, really hard. I've taken a "stress shooting" class, and holy crap it's an eye opener. I remember that our instructor (former army, current country sherrif/swat) told us of a study that showed in most police shootings, the average distance was under 20 feet, and they were averaging like a 15% or lower hit rate.

 

Also, they teach you that you don't pull a firearm unless you absolutely have to, and that you keep firing until your attacker is on the ground. Also, warning shots are a no-no, because you're likely to make your situation worse, or hit a non hostile target/object.

What I'm saying is that if you're really serious about gunning down intruders, then get good enough with your weapon to only need a few shots. If you're not that good, then use a method other than a gun. Like a big effing dog. Or a pack of big effing dogs if you're really paranoid. Plus, how many intruders aren't going to run for their lives when a homeowner opens fire, even if the bullets don't hit them? I'm opposed to defending yourself by spraying bullets, which can be worse than whatever the intruders (who aren't always armed) might be doing.

[TGHusker]

2 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

The entire "now is not the time to talk about it" mantra reminds me of....being a guy.

 

When my wife really wants to talk to me about something really uncomfortable in our relationship, my first response is....not right now.  Fact is, there is never a "good time" to talk about these types of things.  Putting it off till it is a good time is nothing more than trying to get out of talking about it at all.

 

The conversation needs to be forced and there isn't a better time than now.

And this is what I meant by leadership in my previous post and quote of Bill O'Rielly.  A leader may feel uncomfortable but he/she pushes through that uncomfortable place and does the right thing, right now.   I like your analogy- as there are so many times I wanted to go hide when I heard those infamous words "We need to talk".  But it was always better when we got done talking.  Trump has just kicked the can down the road for 2 reason's IMHO:

1. It distracts from his message of trying to get things done

2. He hasn't gotten his marching orders from the NRA yet.  Being a man of no deep values, he needs others to tell him how to respond. 

[Danny Bateman]

2 hours ago, knapplc said:

Mr. Goat raises a couple of interesting points.

 

1)  The "timing" argument is a cheap trick to push the argument off in perpetuity.  It's inherently dishonest, and not intended to open a realistic dialogue.

 

2)  The pro-gun crowd will eventually have to come to the table. There are more of us not in that crowd, and sooner or later those of us for whom guns aren't a hobby will get fed up enough to force the debate. It is in the best interest of pro-gun folks to start the dialogue now, with honest intentions and a willingness to concede position, or there will come a time when they have no position to concede. 

 

 

1) Absolutely. Many of us ITT with widely differing view points all agree that this a cowardly attempt to use a tragedy to hide from a discussion that pro-gun legislators & politicians don't want to have. I'm sick of being told it's not the time. 

 

2) This is a grander problem with the modern day GOP. The Democratic party has their own problems (on gun control as well), but I'm going to set them aside for the sake of this point. The GOP refuses to compromise on guns just like the refuse to compromise on abortion or healthcare or anything else. They use this opportunity to set up false dichotomies (either we give you MORE gun freedoms or they take them away COMPLETELY!) to have a completely dishonest conversation. This forces us to talk past each other because we can't agree on parameters. Heck, the president said himself the 2nd Amendment would end if he wasn't elected. The dishonest rhetoric whips people up into an emotional frenzy so they're more susceptible to supporting anything pro-gun because the alternative is unbearable. This same thing played out for the GOP with healthcare (it's either support our garbage bill or EVERYTHING WILL COLLAPSE!)

 

For them to govern like responsible adults for the betterment of the country, they're going to need to stop relying on such dishonest arguments. We've got to pitch out tribalism before anything gets done in this arena.

 

[BigRedBuster]

10 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

And this is what I meant by leadership in my previous post and quote of Bill O'Rielly.  A leader may feel uncomfortable but he/she pushes through that uncomfortable place and does the right thing, right now.   I like your analogy- as there are so many times I wanted to go hide when I heard those infamous words "We need to talk".  But it was always better when we got done talking.  Trump has just kicked the can down the road for 2 reason's IMHO:

1. It distracts from his message of trying to get things done

2. He hasn't gotten his marching orders from the NRA yet.  Being a man of no deep values, he needs others to tell him how to respond. 

Agree....except for one thing.

 

He kicked the can down the road BECAUSE he has his marching orders from the NRA....and those are to not do a damn thing that would piss them off and damage their gun sales.

[Danny Bateman]

As a side note, in this discussion... the NRA is such a joke.

 

I don't think they give a crap about gun rights or responsibility or any of that jazz. I think they care about gun law deregulation and moving more guns. 

Agree/disagree?

[ColoradoHusk]

Just now, dudeguyy said:

As a side note, in this discussion... the NRA is such a joke.

 

I don't think they give a crap about gun rights or responsibility or any of that jazz. I think they care about gun law deregulation and moving more guns. 

Agree/disagree?

I agree.  I think their motive is to sell more guns.

[TGHusker]

4 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Agree....except for one thing.

 

He kicked the can down the road BECAUSE he has his marching orders from the NRA....and those are to not do a damn thing that would piss them off and damage their gun sales.

True on the BECAUSE -  He's had his marching orders.  He just not smart enough to twist it into a 'response'.  So he needs NRA to write that response  in a way that protects their gun sales as you note and gives some image of compassion and some fake action.