Jump to content

Shots fired at Hill Cumorah


Recommended Posts

I'm having trouble reading this report. Are there two shooters?

There is a person without ill intent that was target shooting at a near by farm who is in trouble after one of his bullets struck an apartment window. He's been arrested.

Yet, there is, I guess, another shooter who was shooting 22 bullets from the treeline at the Visitor Center and struck it twice? And that is still under investigation?

Or is this the same person, or is one set of facts wrong? You shot a window on accident once, you don't shoot at the Visitor's Center on accident twice.

Link to comment
  • 1 month later...

From the UK, the love affair that the US seems to have with guns is somewhat baffling. My nephew live in the States and the right to bear arms is enshrined in his thinking. My brother, who lived in Canada, and his children shoot to hunt. They live in a pretty rural community and virtually live off the land. Legitimate and responsible gun owners over there seem to despise gun control, stating that you can never foresee when someone will go rogue with a gun. I can see their point. I can see my brother's point, but I struggle with my nephew's point of view. Why is bearing stems so important, and automatic weapons? Why? You know one of the most worrying things I heard was from my sister, my American nephew's mum. She was a war bride, so she had lived there for years. And disclosed that she carried a gun in her car, and stated that if any of them blacks were to come near her she would shoot them without hesitation. That was shock to hear from an English woman. So does that attitude still prevail? I mean do people there still believe they have right to shoot someone, regardless of colour, if they feel afraid or threatened in some way? Do you think change will come through young people who may not view gun ownership the same way?

 

Link to comment
25 minutes ago, Orthodox Christian said:

I mean do people there still believe they have right to shoot someone, regardless of colour, if they feel afraid or threatened in some way? Do you think change will come through young people who may not view gun ownership the same way?

Some people do, others don’t.  
 

Maybe shows a trend to more restrictions wanted…

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx

Gun ownership seems to be staying about the same over the last 20 years.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
On 7/29/2022 at 11:28 AM, Orthodox Christian said:

I mean do people there still believe they have right to shoot someone, regardless of colour, if they feel afraid or threatened in some way?

Yes, many people do believe they have the right to defend themselves. There are a few pacifists, of course, who would just roll over.

On 7/29/2022 at 11:28 AM, Orthodox Christian said:

Do you think change will come through young people who may not view gun ownership the same way?

I believe that gun ownership in the US is actually at an all-time high, so no. And every time the politicians start threatening to tighten gun control laws, they actually end up causing more people to buy guns, including people who have never owned them. 

The vast majority of US states now have some form of permitting that allows private citizens with licenses to carry concealed pistols. The US Supreme Court has recently ruled that those states who won't allow private citizens to carry concealed pistols must change their rules to permit law-abiding citizens to do so. Many states have also been adopting so-called "constitutional carry", meaning that private citizens don't even need to obtain a license to carry a concealed pistol in their states. I am a citizen of a state (Washington) that has had permitted concealed pistol by licensing for a good 70 years, and I myself have been licensed to do so for about 30 years now. I once did a statistical analysis of my state's carry permits, and one out of every 20 people in Washington have permits. In light of the recent BLM and Anti-fa riots this may have gone up.  More "wild west" style states like Idaho, Montana, Utah, and Arizona have a much higher percentage of permit holders. If I recall correctly, one out of seven Utahns have carry permits.

It might be surprising to you that many states have laws which permit the open carrying of firearms. Most gun owners prefer not to openly carry firearms in public, however, since even where this is permitted law enforcement officers tend to want to question what the person is doing. 

 

Link to comment
On 7/29/2022 at 11:28 AM, Orthodox Christian said:

From the UK, the love affair that the US seems to have with guns is somewhat baffling.

As an American living in the UK, I find the British abhorrence of guns somewhat baffling. My wife (a Brit) has cautioned me not to tell people that I own nine firearms (safety stored in the US) because it might offend them.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Calm said:

According to statistica, we are only at 42% and we have been pretty steady between 47% as the high and 37% since 1972, so not at an all time high. 

Unclear if you are responding to me? Is this percentage of households having one or more firearms, or individuals owning firearms? 

Anyway, I'd be surprised if 42% were verified and correct. It seems low to me.

2020 was the absolute chart-topping year for gun sales in the US, with 21 million sold. 2021 was second, with nearly 19 million. Of course, a number (don't know the figure) of the gun sales during those years would be sales to current gun owners, but doubtless a large number were to new gun owners.  This is an interesting historical chart (more at the site: https://www.safehome.org/data/firearms-guns-statistics/😞

tEOF6Fh.jpg

Link to comment
9 hours ago, Stargazer said:

As an American living in the UK, I find the British abhorrence of guns somewhat baffling. My wife (a Brit) has cautioned me not to tell people that I own nine firearms (safety stored in the US) because it might offend them.

Is it your understanding that British home owners are required by law to meekly submit to home invaders as they are being robbed and even violated?  Why would the people put up with that?

Link to comment
4 hours ago, longview said:

Is it your understanding that British home owners are required by law to meekly submit to home invaders as they are being robbed and even violated?  Why would the people put up with that?

Only Americans imagine they are defenseless without a firearm. We are a cowardly people.

Link to comment
19 hours ago, Stargazer said:

As an American living in the UK, I find the British abhorrence of guns somewhat baffling. My wife (a Brit) has cautioned me not to tell people that I own nine firearms (safety stored in the US) because it might offend them.

😄 I don't think we are that easily offended, but we would most probably ask why?

Link to comment
9 hours ago, longview said:

Is it your understanding that British home owners are required by law to meekly submit to home invaders as they are being robbed and even violated?  Why would the people put up with that?

In the UK, we would have to rigourously prove self defence, and winning your case would not be a certainty based upon the right to carry licenced fire arm. There was a case some years ago where an elderly farmer who lived alone in his remote farmhouse and who had been subject to previous attacks by youths, shot  two young intruders in his house. He killed one and wounded another. Even though he had been harassed by youths before was convicted and went to prison. He was discharged early, but his self defence plea didn't win his case.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Orthodox Christian said:

In the UK, we would have to rigourously prove self defence, and winning your case would not be a certainty based upon the right to carry licenced fire arm. There was a case some years ago where an elderly farmer who lived alone in his remote farmhouse and who had been subject to previous attacks by youths, shot  two young intruders in his house. He killed one and wounded another. Even though he had been harassed by youths before was convicted and went to prison. He was discharged early, but his self defence plea didn't win his case.

Had he not been personally attacked?  If so, is there no right to protect property at the risk of harming someone else? (I hold to a similar position so am wondering; however, I would include injuring livestock or pets as reasons to be able to use firearms, also destruction or theft of property that was necessary for life like certain medical aids or maybe even drugs that are hard to replace; also imminent threat, not waiting until injured).

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
11 hours ago, The Nehor said:
15 hours ago, longview said:

Is it your understanding that British home owners are required by law to meekly submit to home invaders as they are being robbed and even violated?  Why would the people put up with that?

Only Americans imagine they are defenseless without a firearm. We are a cowardly people.

Only stupid people would claim that there are no other options for self-defense.  Not fighting with fists.  Not using a knife.  Not banging the perp on the noggin with a frying pan.   But firearms are a God-send for women that are half the size of brutes intent on rape, pillage or depravity.  The GREAT equalizer.

It is a SHAME that you so persistently denigrate the decent and law-abiding citizens of this Constitutional Republic.  The Second Amendment is CRUCIAL for assuring and defending the First Amendment.  There have been TOO MANY incidents of government (any level) going rogue.

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, longview said:

Only stupid people would claim that there are no other options for self-defense.  Not fighting with fists.  Not using a knife.  Not banging the perp on the noggin with a frying pan.   But firearms are a God-send for women that are half the size of brutes intent on rape, pillage or depravity.  The GREAT equalizer.

It is a SHAME that you so persistently denigrate the decent and law-abiding citizens of this Constitutional Republic.  The Second Amendment is CRUCIAL for assuring and defending the First Amendment.  There have been TOO MANY incidents of government (any level) going rogue.

I feel no SHAME!

The decent law-abiding citizenry are getting sick of having over 300 mass shootings this year SO FAR. We are probably going to stay at the 45,000+ people dead from gun violence.

The Second Amendment is not CRUICIAL in defending the First Amendment. The universal right to bear arms outside of militia forces wasn’t even a recognized right until the last few decades. The rogue government is far less dangerous than what we are doing to ourselves and the ludicrous idea that Jim Bob and his pals are going to be critical in an actual battle with the US government is silly.

The GREAT equalizer does equalize. It lets EVERYONE kill more people more quickly.

Other nations with loose firearm laws saw increases in domestic gun violence and mass shootings. They enacted gun control laws and the numbers nosedived. For some reason we think the solution is more guns and more armed people to stop the other armed people and it is NOT HELPING. Yet the solution from some is still MORE PEOPLE WITH GUNS.

The idea that we all need firearms to equalize ourselves might work if we were decent and law-abiding but we generally aren’t. The idea that an armed society is a polite society is laughable. Americans are not known internationally for their excessive politeness.

We have a solution but we won’t implement it because some nutjobs back in the 70s and 80s decided to chop off part of the Second Amendment and launched a massive propaganda campaign to convince everyone that gun ownership and possession were always universal rights in the United States. It worked. So now we live in this world:

THE LAND OF FREEDUM!!!!!!!!!!

Link to comment
21 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I feel no SHAME!

Eli D#cken* was heroic and a very excellent example of the citizen militia.  He lives in a farming community.  Thankfully he was concealed carry and saved many many lives in the Greenwood Park Mall.

*Reason for pound sign:  the censoring software does not like the letter "i" in the surname.

Edited by longview
Link to comment
12 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Only Americans imagine they are defenseless without a firearm. We are a cowardly people.

Not so. With evil-doers crawling the streets with firearms, not at all caring about the illegality of their actions, having a firearm for defense is prudence, not cowardice.  If your attacker has a gun, and you only have your fists, you're at a supreme disadvantage. And there's no point in running, because you'll only die tired. I concede that running might be a good defense against a robber, since his aim is to take your property, and the gun is -- usually -- only being used as a way to avoid argument over who gets to keep your property.  I'm old and rather decrepit, however, and running isn't something I can do any longer.

I note that under English common law, when faced with a deadly weapon, deadly force is a lawful defense.  Except nowadays. I am living in the UK, where law-abiding citizens aren't allowed even to carry a knife for self-defense. And of course, knife-crime in London and other big cities is quite a problem. Along with acid attacks. Does this make the Brits more courageous, then, because they're not allowed to carry guns?

And, I seem to have read somewhere: "And again, the Lord has said that: Ye shall defend your families even unto bloodshed." I think it was in Alma 43 somewhere. Perhaps verse 47. I suppose that the Nephites were cowards, too, since the equivalent of the gun back then was the sword, and the Nephites definitely had those for self-defense.

 

Link to comment
7 hours ago, Orthodox Christian said:

😄 I don't think we are that easily offended, but we would most probably ask why?

She seemed to feel otherwise FWIW.

As for the why, I love shooting! I was an expert marksman in the Army. As soon as I get my British citizenship I plan on getting a firearms licence. Already have the gun club picked out. 

Link to comment
17 hours ago, longview said:

Is it your understanding that British home owners are required by law to meekly submit to home invaders as they are being robbed and even violated?  Why would the people put up with that?

People put up with a lot of things. 

The law here is that you are allowed to defend yourself, but only with "reasonable" force. As to what constitutes "reasonable" that's open to interpretation by the police. 

Link to comment
35 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I feel no SHAME!

Of course you don't.

35 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

THE LAND OF FREEDUM!!!!!!!!!!

From your post: "The gun problem in US is so bad that hotel guests are advised not to stand near windows... pathetic."

That's a very telling point! But it doesn't tell the tale you're trying to sell. The "gun problem" indicated is in Chicago, a city and state with very stringent gun control laws. The only people who have guns are the criminals. This is also a city where the prosecutor doesn't feel like prosecuting criminals. Chicago ought to be the last city you attempt to use as a shining example of how guns are the problem. Meanwhile, feel free to stay in any hotel in Seattle, Washington, a state where one out of every 20 persons statewide has a permit to carry a concealed pistol, and where gun ownership is extremely common because it's quite legal. The windows in Seattle may safely be stood in front of.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...