Gun Control

@ dru's war paint.
When I read that I assumed it was a "I think the dog did this, so kill it" kind of thing. Not a "let's kill the dog for shits and giggles" kind of thing. Maybe I assumed wrong. That's just how I read it.

@ countrygirl62696
Except she specifically said innocent dogs.

"is their stereotyping pit bulls and killing innocent dog's left from right"

@ dru's war paint.
I linked the innocent part to the stereotyping pit bulls. So my assumption was the scenario, "They bit someone and they thought they needed to kill the dog." Again, just how I took it. If they're killing innocent dogs for shits and giggles, then I agree with what you said, but again, just how I took it at first glance.

@ countrygirl62696
If someone says a dog is innocent, I'm going to assume it didn't bite anyone. To me, the word innocent means 'without guilt' and so if the dog bit someone, most people wouldn't refer to it as 'innocent' in my opinion.

@ dru's war paint.
My dog's bitten me, but I've provoked the situation. So to me, my dog was innocent. So, that's where I can see it.

@ countrygirl62696
But if you were explaining why a dog was shot, would you call it innocent if it bit someone without explanation of bite or would you say 'it bit someone;I'm sure it didn't mean to, she's a very good dog'.

I've had a dog bite me and a dog bite a neighbor so I've dealt with both situations. I wouldn't say 'innocent' when talking about a dog shooting without explanation unless I purposefully wanted people to think my neighbors were shooting innocent dogs.

@ dru's war paint.
It depends on why the dog bit the person. I know I provoked my dog when he bit me, so I know it was my fault. It's different if it's not provoked.

But either way, I'm agreeing a dog shouldn't be shot.

Oh no if a dog is harming a lot of people than it needs to be put out of its misery and stop harming people.

My town kills them because of their breed, one had escaped his yard and never shown aggressive behavior but, our "kind" citizens shot it and another was a puppy who had never bitten anyone and an old lady shot it 3 times <- the old lady herself told me she did it...

I have 4 scars from being bitten by a Rottweiler but strangely enough I don't think it's the dogs fault, if you knew the owner you'd understand..

@ LOVE1516
And those people should be taken to court and given punishment for the crime they have committed. Killing an innocent animal is wrong and, like I said, sometimes a precursor to killing people. I mean, God forbid some black kid is lurking around the yard of a gun happy person who's already killed a dog. Why would they assume that kid is going to break in and kill/rape them? They already assumed an innocent dog would hurt them.

I don't know, I really hate my town and actually half of them are racist and I try and tell them everybody the same even different colored skin, They aren't any more dangerous than a white person. I would take them to court, but the owners of the dog that were killed don't take action..

And crazy racist gun-happy people who shoot innocent dogs are the exact type of people I don't think need access to guns.

Yes but, also there are people who know how to handle guns and there are people that use them to hunt and feed their families. There are irresponsible people but, there are responsible people. Yes if they have a record and are known to be irresponsible I don't think they should be able to handle a gun but, if there known to be responsible then they should have the choice...

@ LOVE1516
I agree with that. My statement was specifically meant about the racist gun-happy innocent-dog-shooting type you were talking about.

I don't think "known to be responsible" is good enough though. I think you should have to pass a test (to show you understand gun safety/can shoot a gun) to own a gun. Just like you need to pass a test to get a driver's license.

Well yeah there should be classes and a test, I was just saying that if they're responsible enough then they should be aloud to handle guns... Yeah my town is screwed! Not everybody like that those just the majority...

@ LOVE1516
Just the majority makes me wonder if most gun owners shouldn't have guns.

I don't know... Most don't exactly speak their beliefs but, there 'scared' of anybody not their skin tone, and I've only heard a couple (around 4-6) accounts of innocent dogs being killed... My dad own's 3 guns because he hunts and we've had to scare off coyotes a couple of times... My dad not irresponsible around guns and that how we get have are meat and scare away predators, so i'd still like to keep our guns....

I would like to focus the gun control subject on something specific. Accidental child gun deaths.

I have seen at least half a dozen articles in the last month about children who accidentally killed themselves or someone else with a gun. Yesterday it was a seven year old shooting handguns with his family who killed himself. A few weeks ago a child under ten killed his brother under ten with a loaded gun they found in the home. Another incident was of a cop laying his gun (safety not on) on the table and his son shot the wife of the couple he was talking to.

This sort of shit isn't getting brought up with gun control. But clearly there is a fucking issue here. What should we do about it?

I was in choir with a girl who's little brother shot her. By accident of course, he unlocked the father's safe and ended up shooting through her hand and into her head. Luckily for her there was no brain damage, she lost hearing though.

Both of them were taken by CPS for the accident. The brother was given back but my friend had to live with other family. (There was apparently more to the story but I don't feel comfortable with sharing too much of her information)

My dad owns a bunch of guns. I've always been around them. Even taught how to shoot some. There needs to be regulation of guns. Some maniacs can get them too easily. Like my mom, she shot the damn floor of our house.

I don't know if this has been brought up yet, but I thought it would be good to bring up. In California, our governor recently signed a bill increasing the funding for gun confiscation. He added around $24 million to the program. The bill isn't new, it's just increasing funding to a program a past bill created. What the program does is basically, it allows cops to raid people's houses if they have reasonable suspicious and/or solid proof that the house contains illegal guns. If they find any illegal guns, they have permission to take them from the home and the homeowners will not get them back. If the police want to, they can also bring up misdemeanor or felony charges on the homeowner for possession of illegal firearm(s). I think the program is mostly aimed at getting banned firearms like assault rifles away from people and not so much confiscating illegally owned handguns. They're more concerned about people having extremely dangerous guns like assault rifles.

Do you think it's okay for the government to give police permission to confiscate guns from people illegally possessing them?

I have a few concerns about this bill in particular, but overall, I like the idea of the program (not so sure about liking how much money they're putting towards it though). If the gun is illegal, you don't need to have it and shouldn't have it in my opinion. If you want a gun, you can get one legally. Even in California, you can get a gun legally. You just need to jump through more hurdles than more you would in more conservative States. That's the way I see it.

The only problems I have with this bill are one, where is the funding going to come from and what is going to get slashed in return? I really doubt we've got $24 million to spare for this. But that's a different subject entirely. More on the subject, I don't like the idea of police being able to do unwarranted searches. I could be wrong but from what the program sounds like, it gives officers permission to trick the home owner into letting the officer(s) into their house. Once in, the officers for firearms without possessing a search warrant. I don't agree with that. I'm strongly against warrantless searches. I know most officers will still probably get warrants for searching the houses, but I still don't like that the program lets them do warrantless ones if they wanted to.

@ Airi.
Yes, I think police should be able to confiscate illegal guns.
No, I do not think they should be able to enter your house without evidence or a warrant. Fuck that. I'm never for people losing their rights, especially when we have documented cases of police going into the wrong house and shooting people, killing dogs, and killing people. Seems like a death waiting to happen.

"Reasonable cause" doesn't work for me. I've heard the cops lie about what reasonable cause is so many times I could pay a few month's rent if I had a hundred dollar bill for every time.