Utah Guns Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 31 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
48 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=3108359

Home invasion Friday morning in Salt Lake City, sounds more like an assassination.

Looks like SLCPD may have arrested the shooters already.

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=3116423

The sad thing about this is that the victim appears to have been a convicted felon who had gone straight, but still could not own a fire arm, then other BG's kick his door down and take him out right in his own home. None the less, what if these thugs had kicked down the wrong door...and it was at your house? Are home invasions on the increase in SLC, or is it just me? :huh:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
48 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Jeff Johnson said:
Here are links to those stories:
Thanks Jeff, I'll get the hang of it one of these years... :oops:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,616 Posts
That's alright. :D

Here's how I posted that:
Code:
Here are links to those stories:

[url=http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=3108359]Police look for suspects in fatal shooting[/url]

[url=http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=3116423]3 suspects arrested in fatal shooting[/url]
That's not quite so hard as it looks. The web address for the first story is: http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=3108359

I found that by looking up the story on ksl.com.

You put that address into something called a BBcode tag (right after the equals sign): [/color][/b] Then the title of the ...you close it with the end tag: [b][color=red]

Maybe this will make it more obvious:
http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=3108359]Police look for suspects in fatal shooting

Did that make any sense?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,616 Posts
Um, sorry for the hijack. :hijack:

This story just emphasizes the fact that violent home invasions do occur in Utah. Although it looks like this victim may have been specifically targeted, that's not always the case.

This is why I always keep my little friend with me, even at home.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
147 Posts
Desertrat said:
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=3108359

Home invasion Friday morning in Salt Lake City, sounds more like an assassination.

Looks like SLCPD may have arrested the shooters already.

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=3116423

The sad thing about this is that the victim appears to have been a convicted felon who had gone straight, but still could not own a fire arm, then other BG's kick his door down and take him out right in his own home. None the less, what if these thugs had kicked down the wrong door...and it was at your house? Are home invasions on the increase in SLC, or is it just me? :huh:
First things first, don't have a door that can be kicked in easily. Even when I lived in apartments --which almost always have flimsy doors-- I used different home-brewed barricades, gives you at least enough time to GET to your weapon or the phone, preferably both. If your just sitting around watching a movie and your door flies off the hinges and the BG already has a bead on you, not a whole lot can be done.

Darn shame this guy had to die, and in front of the daughter, in her arms, I just hope these punks go away for a nice long time.

Ya know some felon's like my dad were able to get his record expunged after he'd been sober for 15 years and crime free. Though all of his crimes where alcohol related and none of them violent.

Going to open a can worms here so avert your eyes if your faint of heart.......one could argue this guy was a victim of the "war on drugs."

Anyone know if theirs been any kind of a trust fund set up for this guys family? Help with final expenses and such?

-R
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,757 Posts
RobFindlay said:
one could argue this guy was a victim of the "war on drugs."
Hard to say how his life would have gone without the opportunities and dangers created by the war on drugs, but it's certainly possible. If so, he's far from the first, and won't be the last.

I think drug abuse is stupid -- including alcohol -- but I think our approach to handling alcohol is much more rational and effective. Prohibition effectively created organized crime in this country and the laws against drug possession and trafficking are keeping it healthy today. Gangs would dry up and blow away without drug money.

Getting back to the topic, I'm somewhat torn on the question of felons and firearms myself. On the one hand, a guy like this one is exactly the sort we'd like to keep from using guns to hurt innocent people. On the other hand, everyone has a right to defend themselves from violent attack, and does anyone really believe the law banning felons from possessing guns really stops the ones who are going to hurt people? On balance, if I were king I'd probably repeal the felon weapons possession ban.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
701 Posts
:hijack:

Legalizing drugs is a double edge sword. On one hand it would allow the government to gain tax revenue, but on the other hand the companies that would manufacture the drugs would have to keep their costs lower than the drug dealers to make a dent in his biz. Then there is the chance that since its not illegal many more people would become addicted to it. There are people that would not do a drug because it is illegal having that removed we would have more addicts. On the other hand if all those addicts overdose will limit our population growth..... :shock:

:popcorn:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
66 Posts
I have always felt that there are two major problems with drug abuse. One is the violence surrounding the large amounts of money involved in illigal drugs and the other is the addictive nature of drugs and the harm they cause. If we decriminalize drug possesion then the money would drop out of the bottom of the drug trade via the freemarket system, hense the violence goes away. Then we would have to face the destruction of human lives the drugs themselves cause. Right now I think who ever wants drugs can get them, so if drugs were decriminalized the the number of addicts would only go up a small percent. Just my opinion. In the end you would still have a drug problem.
Scallywag
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,757 Posts
scallywag46 said:
I have always felt that there are two major problems with drug abuse. One is the violence surrounding the large amounts of money involved in illigal drugs and the other is the addictive nature of drugs and the harm they cause. If we decriminalize drug possesion then the money would drop out of the bottom of the drug trade via the freemarket system, hense the violence goes away. Then we would have to face the destruction of human lives the drugs themselves cause. Right now I think who ever wants drugs can get them, so if drugs were decriminalized the the number of addicts would only go up a small percent. Just my opinion. In the end you would still have a drug problem.
Scallywag
+1

Let me add to that that I think we could tax drug sales and use the revenue to fund anti-drug education programs and rehab facilities. There would have to be some controls on the rehab, to prevent addicts from just using it as free housing for a while, but I think that could be managed.

I think the result would be a much safer society.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
119 Posts
I remember watching a video in my English 1010 class about the way they control drug use in Amsterdam, Netherlands. There Heroin is legal, well at least in the clinics it is. If any one is caught on the street with it they will get in trouble, but anyone can go to a clinic and buy and use it in the clinic. They don't have restrictions on how much they can buy or the frequency of the visits, but they must use whatever they buy in the clinic and it is all government regulated. It is in no way a rehab either. There plan is to not get the people off the drugs. There thinking is that their needles are clean and free from diseases like AIDs as where the needles on the street are likely shared and full of disease. I don't know what the outcome is now, whether they have seen a benefit or loss to their methods. Anyways, something to think about.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33 Posts
It would be nice if the Unites States would just "take the gloves off" on the drug problem. Same with the border problem. Start using lethal force on those two problems, and both illegals and drug dealers would scatter like roaches when you turn on the kitchen light in the middle of the night. Automated 50 cal. machine guns with thermal sensors would do the trick.

:flamethrower:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,600 Posts
XD-Man said:
It would be nice if the Unites States would just "take the gloves off" on the drug problem. Same with the border problem. Start using lethal force on those two problems, and both illegals and drug dealers would scatter like roaches when you turn on the kitchen light in the middle of the night. Automated 50 cal. machine guns with thermal sensors would do the trick.
The problem I see with that is this: what happens when your son or daughter is stuck in the middle when the "taking of the gloves off" goes down??? I'm not saying what if your kid is a drug dealer or heavily involved in the drug scene. I'm talking about a kid who is dabbling and might otherwise turn out ok -- he's there at the dealer's home with a friend of his who took him there to get some "party favors"... now your kid is dead. I dabbled as a kid, and I turned around 180 degrees... but if the PD could've fought drugs like a real war it's pretty likely I wouldn't have had the chance to realize I was wrong and change.

Another problem is that oftentimes the gov't makes mistakes and accidentally targets the wrong people/home -- if they were allowed to go in an shoot *SUSPECTS*, think of what would happen if you kid or your neighbor's kid were involved in drugs and your home got stormed and your entire family was shot dead.

Are you sure using deadly force on drugs is the solution we want??? Not me.
The same argument holds for illegal immigration. As problematic as it is, even shooting people crossing the border seems awfully immoral to me.

I think the larger problem isn't the drugs but the war on drugs -- legalizing them for sale in alcohol stores and making it prohibitively illegal to buy/sell in the streets would be more moral and serve to control the problem much more than the war does.

Moreover, home invasions like this one would decrease b/c there would no longer be a large amount of people involved in illegal drugs, thus the criminal activity surrounding them would decrease.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33 Posts
I meant only at the border along the fences. I know it may seem morally wrong to take lives at the border. Other countries secure their borders with lethal force. They don't have immigration problems. :) We could set up a "Kill Zone" so that only illegal immigrants and drug traffic would get hit. As morally messed up as that may seem, it would be extremely effective. Sacrifice the few so that the many may be protected. That sentiment has been used for centuries by even the most moral of men. If a few illegals and some drug cartel guys get cremed so the rest of us can be protected, then it's all good for me. I don't feel that those people deserve to have civil rights as soon as they cross the border. They didn't earn it, so they don't deserve it either.

Kevin
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,600 Posts
OK, regarding drug traffickers and the border... I won't argue it on principle, but I question how we would do it in practice: how would we determine they were in fact trafficking drugs??? Through searches and then just execute them on the spot... or shooting suspected traffickers as they cross via non-checkpoint areas???

Regarding illegals and the border... wouldn't this amount to a virtual wall? It might be easier, cheaper, and more effective to just build a big ol' wall with occasional posts along the way with snipers... something like the Berlin wall. But that won't work b/c people just dig under the wall like they already do... so at what point along the border would we be authorized to shoot? Wouldn't they just dig under the wall/border if they know we are going to shoot them near the border and avoid the whole problem to begin with? They already do this to traffic people AND drugs and it seems to be working pretty well. Given how near many US border towns are to the border (shoot, many are literally right on the border) how would we ever be able to enforce this without shooting innocent Americans or innocent foreigners with legal permission to cross??? Again, putting this into practice seems impossible if you only contain it to the border areas.

All of which brings up an important consideration... not about drug traffickers so much, let's ignore them for a moment... but just regarding regular illegal immigrants -- do they not have "INALIENABLE rights"... as Americans, do we not uphold and stand for the ideal that the punishment must fit the crime? That prior to taking away a person's inalienable rights they must be tried by an impartial and fair hearing? I'm assuming that border security can get as stressful as military duty. Considering that, do we want some border agent who is having a rough day being given the authority to just open fire on someone he *THINKS* might be an illegal alien? Typically we give law enforcement weapons with which to defend themselves if they are attacked during the course of their duties... they don't so much have authority to just open fire on a criminal as much as they do to use that weapon only in defense of self and others in immediate danger. We typically reserve the sentencing of someone to the courts. Do you worry that changing this would set a bad precedent for future problems? What about 10 years later it is found to have worked so well that we start using it in our cities against people the cops perceive are unlawfully packing heat???

I'm not sure, but it sounds like a can of worms to me -- a real pandora's box that would create way more problems than it would fix.
Besides, I'm not so sure that most of us don't have relatives who at one point entered the country less than lawfully.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33 Posts
Yeah, it could possibly be a pandoras box. Then again, it might show that the United States isn't a paper tiger anymore. In my opinion, this country has lost its credibility as a force to be reconed with. Why must we always "take the moral high ground"? To everything there is a season, even one to kill. Executing illegals and drug cartel guys found on our side doesn't seem to harsh to me if it's all on video tape with GPS readout on it which can be reviewed after each incident by a judge to assure that the evidence at the time was justifiable for the executions. If the president issued and executive order for all illegals to exit the country within 6 months or die, there would be a mass run for the border.

My point is that if we did this for awhile, the border problem would dissappear in a hurry. As for digging under fences and stuff, yeah that happens but not nearly as often as people just making a run for it and blatently walking right across the border. We would probably discover the "diggers" too eventually and execute them as well.

I see your point of predicting that this authority might become something that might be adopted in the cities if successful, however, I do not agree with you that it could actually happen because we just wouldn't let it. There would be civil war. This is what we get for not enforcing our immigraton laws.

Kevin
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,600 Posts
XD-Man said:
Why must we always "take the moral high ground"?
Because that's what highly moral people do.

To everything there is a season, even one to kill.
Absolutely. But the question remains -- is it just to kill someone b/c they failed to correctly fill out and submit required paperwork??? Remember, we are talking about people who are illegal solely for not going through the requisite paperwork process -- we aren't assuming they have committed other, more heinous, crimes. Should we also execute people for not doing their taxes?

Executing illegals and drug cartel guys found on our side doesn't seem to harsh to me if it's all on video tape with GPS readout on it which can be reviewed after each incident by a judge to assure that the evidence at the time was justifiable for the executions.
If the president issued and executive order for all illegals to exit the country within 6 months or die, there would be a mass run for the border.
Maybe. Or, equally possible, we would find ourselves in an international catastrophe with not only drug cartels around the world financing war against us but shady governments around the world finding more than enough people just south of our border wanting their revenge on us. Mexico might become a terrorist-haven. And don't kid yourself, it would tear this country apart -- with so many LEGAL CITIZENS in this country who have family that are here illegally you can bet there would be mass chaos and uprising once we start blanket shooting all suspects.

My point is that if we did this for awhile, the border problem would disappear in a hurry. As for digging under fences and stuff, yeah that happens but not nearly as often as people just making a run for it and blatantly walking right across the border. We would probably discover the "diggers" too eventually and execute them as well.
The poor who come here come, for the most part, to make a better life for themselves. If we shoot them and chase them out they are going to look for other sources of income. The drug business is extremely profitable. I doubt catching any number of diggers would stop the flow of yet more diggers willing to give it a try. Unless you can leave the US and go kill all of the drug cartels and stop the flow of business and money, you aren't going to stop the drug problem from coming into this country just by killing drug-runners.

I see your point of predicting that this authority might become something that might be adopted in the cities if successful, however, I do not agree with you that it could actually happen because we just wouldn't let it. There would be civil war.
Probably. But is that what we want... to set the stage and create a situation where we will be forced to go through another Civil War???

Another question this would bring up is one bordering on genocide... after America's long stand against genocidal practices, how would it look for us to killing en masse all foreigners who are not citizens -- I realize the two situations are not identical but do you really think that while we are down on the southern border putting bullets through the heads of Mexican families that we will also be in New York and Boston doing the same thing to the occasional *white* illegal from Europe? I highly doubt we would be. How would that look??? Like I said, they aren't exactly the same scenario (your proposal vs. out-right genocide) but you have to admit that at least in practice they would appear *VERY* close to the same thing -- it seems pretty likely the problems this would create would be much larger than any benefits we might get from it.

I also wonder... if we really did this, en-masse, what would happen to our economy? There are so many illegals (and their families) who would be pushed out of the country by force (or by choice) that you have to really consider what impact that would have on our already struggling economy.

Maybe in the end we have to ask ourselves what it is we *REALLY* disagree with when it comes to illegal aliens -- is it a race issue, it is the fact they are here illegally, or is it something else??? If it's merely an issue of legality then I propose that perhaps the benefit we get from them is much greater than the detriment of them being here illegally -- perhaps we should just relax the process of allowing them to get in legally, fine the ones who are already here illegally, and try to make the whole process smoother but with consequences for those who have already broken the law -- but why shoot the guy that I depend on for my food, my roads, my yardwork, etc???

I wonder if we aren't coming at this from a slightly different angle -- maybe you are looking at from the assumption that illegals=drugs and I am looking at it from the assumption that illegals and drugs do not necessarily go hand-in-hand... ???
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
342 Posts
scallywag46 said:
I have always felt that there are two major problems with drug abuse. One is the violence surrounding the large amounts of money involved in illigal drugs and the other is the addictive nature of drugs and the harm they cause. If we decriminalize drug possesion then the money would drop out of the bottom of the drug trade via the freemarket system, hense the violence goes away. Then we would have to face the destruction of human lives the drugs themselves cause. Right now I think who ever wants drugs can get them, so if drugs were decriminalized the the number of addicts would only go up a small percent. Just my opinion. In the end you would still have a drug problem.
Scallywag
I don't see that solving the violence problem that is associated with drugs, possibly marijuana but not the harder drugs that are addicting. People will still get so addicted and dependent that they will spend every dime they get to buy more. Drug addicts will pawn everything they own, rob and kill when they run out of money. Also I don't see them legalizing all drugs. There are many that are just to dangerous and toxic to manufacture. Meth is one that comes to mind.

I've seen a lot of drug use in my life. I've had multiple friends become felons, vegetables, and dead because of their choice to do drugs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33 Posts
Wll Bane. :) You are a deep thinker. Once again, you have been able to come up with some very good points. Unfortunately, I actually agree with most of it. We do need some kind of crackdown though. The illegal labor drives down wages and sucks up middle class tax dollers for the services they use. American roofers and contractors and others in the trades that the illegals work in have been pushed out of business in many places. Those American workers cannot live off of the wages that most people who employ illegals offer. Also, most of the money made by illegals goes right back to Mexico and hurts our economy. I'm sorry Bane, I just don't like those darn illegals not one tiny little bit. If some people actually think that nobody here will work the jobs they do, try watching that show "Drity Jobs". Americans would take those jobs, it's just that the corporate profit margin will shrink back down to where it's supposed to be and they would have to start paying decent wages again.

Another thing that upsets me about the illegals is the damage they have done to our culture and the influence they are gaining. Even one of our presidential candidates wants us to teach our children to speak Spanish. This is very upsetting to me. Most of our goods have Spanish writing on them to cater to the illegals. It's sickening. :( When you are in the grocery store and the person behind the counter cannot communicate with you, and the illegals behind you in line are making all kinds of fun at you in spanish, it's humiliating. They make you feel like a foreigner in your own country!

Kevin
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,600 Posts
XD-Man said:
We do need some kind of crackdown though. Another thing that upsets me about the illegals is the damage they have done to our culture and the influence they are gaining.
Now *THIS* I can agree with! (actually your entire last post, for the most part) Indeed something *DOES* need to be done, I don't at all disagree.

When you are in the grocery store and the person behind the counter cannot communicate with you, and the illegals behind you in line are making all kinds of fun at you in spanish, it's humiliating. They make you feel like a foreigner in your own country!
Yep, this actually happened to me just today! At Walmart I tried to return a product today but they wouldn't take it back so I left it in my cart and went shopping -- I was assured it wouldn't be a problem so I didn't sweat it. The checkout clerk saw the product in my cart and wanted to know if I wanted to buy it or not. I told her it was mine, not Walmart's; she started demanding the product back if I wasn't going to pay for it. I tried to explain the situation but she obviously wasn't understanding. Eventually she just let it go but you could tell she didn't understand what I was saying. That is very frustrating.

Personally, I am offended when people can't converse in English with me. I lived in Brasil for 2 years and always went out of my way to learn to speak as correctly as possible and demanded no one try and speak English with me (unless they were just trying to practice their own English skills). I have traveled as a tourist to many Spanish countries and having a rudimentary understanding of Spanish always made attempts to try and speak at least some Spanish, even though I was only a tourist in their country for 2 or 3 days. It pisses me off when people who live here (especially those who have lived here for years) can't speak hardly any English) -- pure laziness. I don't care how hard English is, you can learn the basics even if you don't conjugate verbs and such quite correctly!

What I think we should do is what I heard termed once, "remove the carrot". Basically what we need to do is make entering the country legally easier but predicated on being able to communicate in English on a rudimentary level. Mandate that immigrants must go through a certain period of time working and proving they are law-abiding and not jobless burdens. During that time they are documented workers, not citizens. After that period of time they earn their citizenship. Prior to being a citizen make it Federal law that absolutely *0* public tax dollars can be spent in any way, shape, or form on public programs for non-citizens (except for imminent life-threatening emergencies, like if they are hit by a car). That way they pay taxes but don't collect a dime directly. It makes figuring out who is law-abiding easier and documents who is who and gives them the benefit of making it easier to get here legally.

Anyone who still comes in as an illegal and is caught should immediately be enlisted in the military by force and sent to the crummiest post we have at the time. Once they serve their tour of duty, they can apply for citizenship if they served their time honorably.

That would solve the problems. Illegals wouldn't benefit from our public programs; legals wouldn't either but they wouldn't be criminals. And rather than draining our system, they would be paying into it. And we'd get free soldiers to boot.

As far as jobs/wages... I agree with you for the most part -- but I also think letting the immigrants work these crappier jobs is ultimately better for us. It ensures we get services and products at better prices and it promotes Americans to go to school and get more education with which to attain even better jobs; it works to ensure that the next generation of Americans will continue to flourish. We aren't going to flourish as a country if large numbers of Americans are working the fields and cleaning the local high school. While the immediate results of having immigrants working these jobs can be difficult, it forces us to expand our horizons and better prepare ourselves for the future.

If we don't embrace the fact that we need to become a nation of scientists or other higher-ed specialties, someone else in the world will. Every great society has had a form of "slave labor" with which to prop itself up on -- wrong or right it seems a fact of reality. I say, let the immigrants do the lesser jobs so that we have more people to do the greater ones.
 
1 - 20 of 31 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top