Violence at Political event?

Jan 09, 2011 10:29

Who would have ever seen that coming. I mean really, bring a gun to a political event in America and something bad happening, what would have been the odds of that?

Leave a comment

vickimfox January 9 2011, 18:45:48 UTC
Let's be careful to not jump to conclusions until more facts are in and we look to reliable news sources ( ... )

Reply

ebonyleopard January 9 2011, 18:53:23 UTC
What party was the woman shot with anyway? I don't really know. Though that really wasn't what I was getting. Simply put, it's just not a great idea to allow fire arms to an emotionally charged environment like a political event (though there's a law proposed right now that would allow just that from what I saw on the news this morning).

Reply

vickimfox January 9 2011, 19:10:06 UTC
Why not ( ... )

Reply

ebonyleopard January 9 2011, 19:23:48 UTC
I live in Pennsylvania, probably an NRA captial of the world so no, I'm not concerned with attempt to restrict rights, I'm more advocating a common sense idea of, "A time and place for everything". I don't know, I'm not sure I'd carry a loaded weapon in, say a new born baby ward. Can/could you? Probably, though I don't see the sense in doing so ( ... )

Reply

vickimfox January 9 2011, 20:24:37 UTC
By the way, I do not own a gun.

My idea of "a time and place" is different from your idea of "a time and place". For me, if it is legal, then it should be allowed any time and in any place. That does NOT mean I think it is wise or prudent to take advantage of that liberty in every time and every place, but it does mean it is not my place to put a limit on another person's liberty in exercising a legal right.

Why not take a gun into the maternity ward? How is it any different from an umbrella (blunt instrument), pocket knife, a syringe on the nurse stand, nail clippers (hey, if TSA thought a person could hijack a plane using them ...), or any other possible weapon? Sure, it may not be wise or prudent, but just having a weapon is not the same as having the _intent_ to do harm with it.

I will have to defer to other resources and books that document the many cases of self-defense and stopping a crime resulting from the victim being armed.

Reply

ebonyleopard January 9 2011, 20:46:35 UTC
Yeah, but it's legal to drink alcohol. But you don't want somebody downing a 40once, while holding a baby doing 70mph down a highway ( ... )

Reply

vickimfox January 9 2011, 21:07:25 UTC
Of course, I don't want a drunk with a baby driving over the speed limit. But, I don't want a law on the books limiting this. Now, I could try to give a typical libertarian argument, but I don't agree with those. Instead, I prefer to defer to God's Word as the authority and example.

In Scripture, you do not find laws against stupid behavior, even stupid behavior that MAY result in harm to others. Why? Because there are already laws in place covering actual harm.

So, if the drunk with a baby speeding down the highway gets home safely, then great. No harm, no problem.

But, if the drunk gets into a crash and the baby or another person dies, then the drunk is guilty of murder and according to the Law is to be executed.

Now, which is going to be more of a deterrent to me? A law against drunk driving that has a fine or the law that I will be executed if I cause someone to die?

Also, which is more fair? A law prohibiting a stupid behavior because it MIGHT cause harm or a law prescribing harsh and just punishment for harm ACTUALLY

Reply

ebonyleopard January 9 2011, 21:22:11 UTC
Not to be argumentative, but...isn't that the whole point of a law to begin with? I mean, otherwise, if a law isn't made to stop you from doing something before you do it, they why bother with having any laws to begin with. Not all laws are reactionary, only triggered after something is done.

Even some of God's laws are pro-active and not all post-active.

Reply

vickimfox January 9 2011, 21:53:06 UTC
Let's look at it this way. Every just law has two aspects or views ( ... )

Reply


Leave a comment

Up