Shoot First, Look for Cops Later
We’ve always maintained that there should be stricter requirements for owning guns in this country. You should have to prove that you’ve never committed a crime regardless of how violent or whether or not guns were involved. You should have to show that you’re not a danger to society or would do anything that would constitute harm against another person. You should have to prove your brain is still connected to the rest of your body.
According to the Associated Press, two men in Tuscaloosa, Ala. was arrested by police after he tried to shoot at a man in a parked car with a shotgun while a police officer sat right behind him at a red light.
I guess since the police officer was an off-duty police officer, he thought he couldn’t do anything since he was off the clock.
The man got out of his car, fired four shots into the other car and the victim sped off as the man chased him and the police officer pursued him and called for more officers. They caught up to the man because if he’s not smart enough to know not to shoot at someone while police are behind you, he also not a master of escape.
The good news is the victim was not injured. Don’t you like it when bad stories have happy endings, which is more than I can say for most of my “happy endings.”
Jeffrey Phillips Said,
August 28, 2007 @ 9:49 pm
Your premise about restricting gun ownership, while seeming a bit much in my opinion I would happily agree to it if you added simular restraint to drivers licenses and the ability to bear children.
As for the dumb shooter, how do you miss four shots at close range with a shot gun?
cullarn Said,
August 29, 2007 @ 3:52 pm
easy jeff (if i may call you that) same way you dont notice a police car behind you
psychedelikat Said,
August 30, 2007 @ 7:49 pm
Dude, parts of your story made less sense than Miss Teen South Carolina’s response to why people can’t find the United States on a map. Re-read this thing, man. “Two men…WAS arrested?” Uh, grammar check? “I guess since the police officer was an off-duty police officer, he thought he couldn’t do anything since he was off the clock.” Redundant….off duty implies off the clock. Also, the “he” in the sentence is unclear, although we all know you meant the criminal, the sentence still sounds like an uneducated twit wrote it, and we all know you’re not that.
valdis Said,
August 31, 2007 @ 1:11 pm
Umm… just as a quick note:
“You should have to prove that you’ve never committed a crime regardless of how violent or whether or not guns were involved.”
That’s *exceedingly* difficult to prove. It’s *easy* to say “Run a background check, see if he’s been *convicted* of anything”.
But to prove you’ve never committed one, including all the unreported ones like that shoplifiting incident in the Alaska drugstore in 1981, or that grafitti in San Francisco in 2003, or the hundreds of thousands of other unnoticed/unreported/unsolved crimes - convince me you didn’t do *any* of them. Now that’s a *challenge*….
Glenn Atkins Said,
September 3, 2007 @ 12:55 pm
More guns means less crime
RONALD Said,
September 4, 2007 @ 5:35 pm
IF SOMEONE IS IN MY HOME (AT NIGHT) OR TRYING TO GET IN MY CAR ( VIOLENTLY) I AM GOING TO SHOOT FIRST AND ASK QUESTIONS LATER. HE / SHE MAY HAVE A GUN , KNIFE, OR OTHER OBJECT TO HURT ME OR MY FAMILY… WHEN YOU TAKE THE GUNS FROM LAW ABIDING CITIZENS, ONLY THE CRIMINALS HAVE GUNS… WHY DO YOU THINK THE UNITED STATES HAS NEVER BEEN INVADED BY A FOREIGN POWER, THERE IS 300 MILLION PEOPLE WITH GUNS.
ALL OF YOU BLEEDING HEARTS GO AHEAD AND ASK ALL YOUR QUESTIONS AND TRY TO FIGHT A CRIMINAL WITH A KNIFE, AND HE CUTS YOUR BLEEDING HEART OUT, THEN TELL ME TO BE CAREFULL AND NOT USE YO MUCH FORCE…
bones Said,
September 10, 2007 @ 10:14 am
There are over 3,000 gun control laws on the books now, maybe there ought to be some laws about being a politician, or maybe being able to sue a LAWYER!
Cary Said,
September 14, 2007 @ 5:37 am
“You should have to show that you’re not a danger to society or would do anything that would constitute harm against another person. You should have to prove your brain is still connected to the rest of your body.” I kind of resent this statement. It seems to imply that most of us are “…a danger…” and should prove otherwise and that’s simply not true! I daresay 99.999% of all legitimate gun owners are upright, law abiding citizens who are the backbone of our society. Yes, accidents happen, and when something negative happens concerning a legal gun owner the press goes crazy. You usually don’t hear about crimes thwarted by gun-owners. There’s nothing to report!
Hanna Said,
September 22, 2007 @ 7:24 am
“That’s *exceedingly* difficult to prove.”
That’s the _point_. Only give guns to those that _can_ prove this. Hence less guns, less gun violence, less idiots shooting others in front of a police… (Gotta say this story made my day: I’m still laughing!)
Sam Said,
October 14, 2007 @ 10:52 am
Even if the person who owns the gun is a nice, law abiding, respectful person who simply wants to protect their family from potential dangers, I still think you should not give them guns. I’ve heard stories about how kids find guns of perfectly nice, law abiding, respectful parents who “forget” to lock up their gun in a cabinet, and save your kid the pain of accidently shooting himself, or others. Just last year a kid in my school brought a knife to school and was threatning people with it. I would have HATED to see what would happen if that was a gun that his parents had. (And he was twelve at the time, smart enough to know what he was doing and how to operate them.) If you must have guns, give them to actual police officers or other people like that who might actually need them in a crime, don’t give them to everyone who asks for one.
Also, “WHY DO YOU THINK THE UNITED STATES HAS NEVER BEEN INVADED BY A FOREIGN POWER, THERE IS 300 MILLION PEOPLE WITH GUNS.” It’s not because of guns, it’s because of nuclear weapons. I mean, when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, we went and bombed them right back (maybe even realasing chemicals that might lead to lukemia). That’s why no other foreign power has invaded the U.S., not because some people have guns.
anonymous Said,
October 19, 2007 @ 3:02 pm
“WHY DO YOU THINK THE UNITED STATES HAS NEVER BEEN INVADED BY A FOREIGN POWER, THERE IS 300 MILLION PEOPLE WITH GUNS.”
Actually, if I seem to remember correctly, the US is technically a foreign power, it was invaded or “claimed” by England, the Americans fought back, I’d call england’s landing there in the first place invasion.
Also, since a loooong time ago, no foreign transport with the intent to invade has landed in Britain, no guns allowed over here, we’re ok with that.
Funny story too
thunderbird Said,
October 28, 2007 @ 9:59 pm
We dont need any more gun restrictions we need to go after the crinimals who misuse guns only a idiot would belive more gun control laws would stop crinimals
Blayze Kohime Said,
November 4, 2007 @ 11:44 am
If more guns mean less crime, why do countries with no guns have less crime? >.> Damn you statistics!
MG Said,
November 12, 2007 @ 4:32 pm
To the person who said that the gun owners are the reason we were not invaded. A History Major will call you WRONG. We were invaded in 1812 by the British during the war of 1812, guess you didn’t pass US History. Also I think all the Planes, Ships, Tanks, and Artillery Peices of the US Armed Sevices are more threating then a bunch of civilians armed with pistols, rifles, and shotguns.
Hadyn the wise one Said,
November 18, 2007 @ 7:04 pm
I think that people who would do something dangerous with a gun are usually obviously noticed so anyone who would sell a gun to them are just plain stupid.
TIna Said,
January 4, 2008 @ 1:17 pm
How many criminals actually care about gun control laws? the only thing these laws do is take away means of protection from the law abiding citizens. you outlaw guns , then only the criminals will have guns. and trust me… the criminals WILL GET GUNS NO MATTER WHAT LAWS THERE ARE against them.
Hence the term CRIMINALS. criminals have no regard for the law PERIOD. criminals break laws… what makes you think they are going to abide by laws prohibiting gun ownership. most criminals don’t even OWN the gun they use in crimes. The majority of the time they obtain them illegally anyway.
Ask yourself this…( hypothetical situation where guns are illegal) you are in your home with your family having a nice dinner.. and of course you have no guns in the house because guns are illegal and you being a good law abiding peace loving citizen you would NEVER break the law by having a gun in the house ( yes,,, redundant I know.. making a point here) when All of a sudden a burglar breaks into your house and OMG… he has a gun!!! What? but. guns are ILLEGAL!! do you think he cares? hes going to kill you and your family and steal everything you own while you stand there helpless to defend yourself because you donut own a gun.
you think a criminal who commits violent crimes with a gun is gun is going to be like ” every on the ground or I’M going to ask again really really loudly.. because I don’t have a gun cus they’re illegal!.” no… a criminal is going to FIND guns.. even if it means .. OMG… committing a CRIME.. to obtain one…. THINK PEOPLE.. what is one crime of possessing a gun matter to a criminal who intends to commit an even greater crime of robbing a bank.. or killing you… you really think hes gonna worry about braking the law by owning a gun? COME ONE.. let people have the means to defend themselves. take the one guy who open fired in a mall killing 8 people then himself… all it would have taken is ONE person there with a weapons permit and the skill to use it to take that dude out before he killed ANYONE…. another story in the news recently… a gunman open firing in two different churches until a former, or was it off duty I forget… security guard drew her weapon and killed the perpetrator, possibly saving many more lives.. the more restrictions we put on guns.. the more criminals will have them and less law abiding people can defend themselves.. the key is PROPER EDUCATION ON SAFETY.. if you have children in the home TEACH THEM that it is not a toy.. take them to a safe place and teach them the PROPER use of it. my brother learned how to use a hunting riffle when he was 12 years old.. and went hunting frequently. He knew it was not a toy.. and knew how to use it safely because my parents made him take lessons at the local riffle range. WE have the constitutional RIGHT to bear arms. let us USE that right and we can stop these violent criminals ourselves before they hurt anyone. rather than wait and let the cops investigate the murder afterwards. because tehre would BE No murder if the victim had a gun and knew how to use use it.
Retired Military Man Said,
January 4, 2008 @ 2:02 pm
“Blayze Kohime Said,
November 4, 2007 @ 11:44 am
If more guns mean less crime, why do countries with no guns have less crime? >.> Damn you statistics!”
Blayze,
Just out of curiosity, where do you aquire your statistics?
Kassie Said,
March 31, 2008 @ 1:31 am
Its a question of whether its worth punishing everybody in America for the idiots who aren’t responsible enough to own a weapon. Its a item that has the potential to do tremendous harm, and while most people handle them responsibly, there are those who don’t.
I believe that the right to bear arms is a Constitutional right that should not be taken away. But as I live in the South( guns everywhere), I will say that it is far too easy to obtain a gun. Gunshows don’t even look twice at who their buyer is. A kid can walk in a get one, no kidding. One of my teenage cousins did it. Its absurd. What is so wrong with checking for identification, age, criminal history, ect? Unless you have a record it won’t affect you. People who are responsible enough to own a weapon will still be able to get their guns, while those who aren’t mature enough or have used them unwisely in the past won’t be able to get them. What is the harm in that?
justin Said,
April 29, 2008 @ 6:58 pm
after you get shot dont shot the gun again
Dark Lady Said,
June 3, 2008 @ 8:13 am
What I think is let people have all the guns they want. BUT make it damn near impossible to get any ammunition. Think about it if someone comes into your home and you point a gun at them (loaded or not) that person will probably s**t their pants and try to get away.
Then you can just bash them on the head and wait for the police to arrive. This in only effective if the gun is NOT loaded. It defeats the purpose if you accidentally shoot yourself.
Jer Said,
August 5, 2008 @ 11:18 pm
Some of these arguments are completely idiotic. First of all, the crime rate in England, since the gun ban, is up a LOT. I read one statistic that put it at 200%. The reason is that, criminals (with or without guns) know that the victims are unarmed. Another example, Washington DC’s crime rate sky rocketed after the ban was put in place. Funny though, that when a Florida Police department (don’t remember which one right now) publicly announced that it was training/licensing women to carry/use a pistol, the rape rate in that city dropped to one of the lowest in the country and the overall crime rate decreased significantly.
If someone pointed a gun at me, and I knew that ammo was “hard to get”, I wouldn’t s**t my pants. I would think “what a moron”.
So private citizens owning/carrying firearms doesn’t deter invasions? What about Switzerland? They don’t even have a real standing army, yet it has been something like 800 years since they were last invaded. Every adult male and many females are issued military assault rifles and pistols by the government and are expected to use them. There is a story from they early 1900s (not sure if it really happened; however, it is still cool) that says, A German General was visiting Switzerland when he asked the Swiss Leader, “How many men to you command?” The Swiss replied, “I can have 1 million men ready in less then 24 hours.” The German the asked, “What would you and your men do if I marched 5 million troops in to your country tomorrow?” The Swiss smiled and said, “We would all take 5 shots, then we would go home!” They have it right in Switzerland, they do shooting competitions that are sponsered by there Government. All of this to ensure they have the best collection of marksmen in the world so that they, not the “military” can defend the country. There are even jouurnalists that have noted 13 year old girls riding bikes from school to the gun range with fully automatic assault rifles strapped to thier backs. Oh, and I forgot to mention, they have very low violent and gun crime rates.
If our Government or military happen to try to take over the country, that is “suppress our rights as citizens”, whos responsibility is it defend those rights? The citizens of this great country!!! The militia was not designed to defend us from other countries but our own, if a “Hitler” came along. Tell me this, how exactly do you expect to defend yourself from the military without guns? Yes I know the military has the Navy and it’s many ASSets, the Air Force and it’s leathal arsenal, the Army and Marines as bullet catchers and slingers (just kidding guys), but we as citizens of a FREE country have the DUTY to defend ourselves and our rights.
Anybody who thinks that “Gun Control” will control anything, is simply ignorant. Many studies have been conducted using prison inmates as the subjects. They asked things like, “If you thought a person might be armed with a firearm, would you be likely to commit a crime against them?” The responses were so overwhelming that many Gun control advocates have had to rethink thier arguments. Almost all criminals interviewed said that they were less likely to commit ANY crime in an area that had little or no gun control; however, if gun control was intact, they wouldn’t hessitate.
The next time you decide to argue/debate a subject as heated as this one, PLEASE do some research and show up with a semi-intelligent opinion.