Yet another "licensed" gun-nut arrested for murder.....

[MazeRat7]

Remind me again why a "license to carry" is supposed to make us safer ?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/08/03/road.rage.ap/index.html

MZr7

[OrlandoGator]

1. You should blame the gun and the license.

Oops, too late.

[babylonsister]

2. If you could see my mug right now...

this is unreal! :wow:

[Caution]

3. This was in the next city over from me.

Unbelievable. This guy clearly had enough time to calm down too between the original argument and the shooting. First degree murder on this one. He'll probably claim insanity.

[RetroLounge]

4. "Police said Bishop has a valid handgun license"

geez

RL

[jody]

5. Who told you " 'license to carry' is supposed to make us safer "?

Those who support RKBA acknowledge that formerly law-abiding citizens sometimes go berserk and commit a crime.

Still, given that SCOTUS has said that governments are not obligated to protect an individual unless she/he is in custody, then self-defense is a personal problem. It's a fact that handguns are the most effective-efficient tool for that job.

One person's crime does not alter the fact that millions of law-abiding citizens carry handguns every day and do not commit a crime.

[Inland]

7. Now, how did the killer's right to carry help defend the victim again?

Seems to me that HIS right to carry a weapon didn't do much for the defense of the helpless at all.

Seems to me that it's not very efficient at all to allow any individual to carry a gun and then wait and see if he is the aggressor or the victim.

Well, not EVERY individual, just the law-abiding-so-far, to-our-knowledge ones. This guy has killed his last person with a legal gun.

[jody]

8. You missed my point entirely. Just because one person committed

a crime is not justification to deny other law-abiding citizens the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

Article I of the Massachusetts constitution says " All people are born free and equal and have certain natural, essential and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties".

Given that the constitution says the right of self-defense is among the "unalienable rights", the question then becomes "What tools does a law-abiding citizen use for self-defense"?

Law enforcement officers choose handguns for self-defense and they do not have an unalienable right to self-defense, that right is granted by government. It seems to be self evident that if law enforcement officers use handguns for self-defense, then law-abiding citizens should be allowed to use handguns to exercise their unalienable right of self-defense.

[Inland]

9. It's not one person's crime.

No more than it's someone else's bad driving that makes me have to qualify for a driver's license. It's a recognition that not everyone is competent to drive a car and decisions have to be made.

Who shouldn't be walking around with a gun? When that person is mentally ill, or on medication; when that person wants to take their weapons into schools, hospitals, place of worship, private businesses that don't want weapons on the premises; when that person is indicted or accused of a crime.

The argument that guns are an efficient means of self defense doesn't hold up, when the guns just go to anybody. Guns are a tool for self defense and crime. It's not like they are a kevlar vest.

Calling in an inalienable right merely makes things worse, by the way. Inalienable rights can't be taken away even after crimes are committed. That's what makes them inalienable.

[jody]

10. You should read the initial post that said "why a license to carry' is

supposed to make us safer".

That statement can only be taken as being against the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms for self-defense. That's precisely why I responded as I did.

If you choose not to defend yourself, that's your choice but what gives you the authority to impose your beliefs upon other law-abiding citizens?

The very essence of individual rights is that each citizen has the opportunity to do what they believe is right. That holds true for abortion, religion, speech, voting, self-defense, etc.

Either you are for individual rights or you oppose them.

[Inland]

11. Well, I guess when it comes to people being shot, I oppose rights.

People being shot, people running other people over, people leaving guns with their children, I guess those are rights I can live without.

The right to carry may or may not be an aid to self defense. Because it depends what the gun is used for. In the case at issue, it was used not for defense.

So what gives me the right? Same as any citizen trying to protect other citizens. Shoot me for voting.

[jody]

12. I see we disagree on the most basic right, the right of self-defense.

The fact that one citizen committed a crime does not justify taking that right away from law-abiding citizens.

If one did, then we would take away the right to vote because so many people voted for Dubya!

:hi:

[Mythsaje]

6. Contrast him to the thousands that weren't... n/t