Talk About Blunting Development....

[waterboy]

One more try.

Maybe I missed it but I didn't see any comment about recent stories on local news about bullets travelling across the Arkansas River in South Tulsa then passing through a suburban home and exiting through its kitchen. Turns out some local boys was utilizing their 2nd 'mendment rights by setting up a target on one side of the river and shooting at it from the other side! Dang, they missed and bullets commenced a flyin into the burbs. Imagine that.

The really interesting thing to me is that local authorities commented that it is legal in Tulsa County to shoot into, across or around the river. And of course if its private property you can shoot anywhere you want. The problem is that the bullets have the energy to travel several miles and still be deadly.

Even if true, can you imagine the carnage if the areas along the river South of the Creek expwy are ever developed and these folks keep exercising their rights? Float trips will require PFD's made with Kevlar. "Stop, Drop and Roll" will take on new meaning. What about floating targets dragged behind sailboats on the new Jenks lake? Cool. And what do you do when you are floating along the river on a ferry and hear bullets whizzing by? Shoot back? It would be legal according to "make my day" laws wouldn't it?

Dang Oklahoma is getting wierd. Seriously, the first time some innocent is killed by a legal weapon shooting into a public area that is poised for development......expect development to cease. Seems to beg for some sort of gun free zone or buffer zone so that reasonable development without fear of stray bullets could be pursued. Whadda ya think?

[custosnox]

Even if it is legal to discharge the weapon outside of city limits, in a situation like this it should be an obvious wreckless endangerment, in my opinion at least.  That's kind of like saying it's legal to shoot at a gun range, so no laws are broken if you start shooting in the direction of where the other shooters are.

[waterboy]

One thing Randi Miller was right about was favoring a large river authority that would oversee issues like this that transcend any one municipal or county area along the river. The state isn't prepared to do so until bodies start floating to the beach or the family meatloaf has mom's left ear on top of it.

Must we always wait for a tragedy?

[Red Arrow]

Dang Oklahoma is getting wierd. Seriously, the first time some innocent is killed by a legal weapon shooting into a public area that is poised for development......expect development to cease.Seems to beg for some sort of gun free zone or buffer zone so that reasonable development without fear of stray bullets could be pursued. Whadda ya think?

Not my first choice to keep development from happening but it may be someone else's that doesn't want to see the open land turned into concrete.

[Breadburner]

One more try.

Maybe I missed it but I didn't see any comment about recent stories on local news about bullets travelling across the Arkansas River in South Tulsa then passing through a suburban home and exiting through its kitchen. Turns out some local boys was utilizing their 2nd 'mendment rights by setting up a target on one side of the river and shooting at it from the other side! Dang, they missed and bullets commenced a flyin into the burbs. Imagine that.

The really interesting thing to me is that local authorities commented that it is legal in Tulsa County to shoot into, across or around the river. And of course if its private property you can shoot anywhere you want. The problem is that the bullets have the energy to travel several miles and still be deadly.

Even if true, can you imagine the carnage if the areas along the river South of the Creek expwy are ever developed and these folks keep exercising their rights? Float trips will require PFD's made with Kevlar. "Stop, Drop and Roll" will take on new meaning. What about floating targets dragged behind sailboats on the new Jenks lake? Cool. And what do you do when you are floating along the river on a ferry and hear bullets whizzing by? Shoot back? It would be legal according to "make my day" laws wouldn't it?

Dang Oklahoma is getting wierd. Seriously, the first time some innocent is killed by a legal weapon shooting into a public area that is poised for development......expect development to cease. Seems to beg for some sort of gun free zone or buffer zone so that reasonable development without fear of stray bullets could be pursued. Whadda ya think?

lol....

[waterboy]

Not my first choice to keep development from happening but it may be someone else's that doesn't want to see the open land turned into concrete.

I hadn't looked at it that way. Perhaps there is an armed and active anti development movement around South Tulsa. 

And I don't only mean the type of development that puts shopping centers next to rivers with ferris wheels, ballparks and searchlights. Just the natural expansion of housing, shopping, entertainment that comes with the growth of a city. When my brother goes out to his south 40 and hears a mufflled stacatto report of an ak47 a mile away, he isn't too surprised. Occasionally one will whiz nearby but usually the rolling terrain stops them. Hunting season is always a little bit noisier and unnerving. But shooting into a public river where your leaders have artists' renderings of ferries, sailboats and marina's? That is an unexpected surprise.

[Red Arrow]

I hadn't looked at it that way. Perhaps there is an armed and active anti development movement around South Tulsa. 

Or maybe some TN radicals that want to stop suburban sprawl in favor of urban infill and other redevelopment.   

(Just kidding, I hope)

[Ibanez]

We had a problem last summer with the idiots on the Southeast of us setting up a target out in their field and shooting at it. The problem was even though our house sits at almost the farthest point opposite them on our 15 acres that is not enough distance considering there is just a small stand of trees between us and them. As a result we would be sitting on our deck and hear bullets whizzing by. We would yell and them to stop between shots but they just kept going.

Eventually one Saturday while we were out the bullets started whizzing by and one went through the side of our outbuilding. I called 911 and told them what was going on and asked for a Sheriff's deputy to come out and put a stop to it, nobody ever showed up that day or the entire week. The following Saturday the shooting started again, I yelled for them to stop and they continued. I again called 911 and told them what was going on and what had happened the previous weekend. The operator told me that "it is a large county and we can't be everywhere." I said that I understood that, but she might want to let the deputies know that the next time a bullet flew by my house I would be returning fire and I'm a much better shot than the idiots next door who think emptying a semi automatic pistol's clip as fast as they can is "target practice." A deputy was there in less than 15 minutes and we haven't had the problem since.

[patric]

http://www.fox23.com/news/local/story/B-A-Homeowners-Fed-Up-With-Stray-Bullets/k7PdpkMwWECl8olye0sPQw.cspx

Stray bullets can cause tragedy, and even people who should know better are not immune:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=12&articleid=20080331_12_74573

[Conan71]

It's a very small percentage of people who don't appreciate the consequences of a mishandled firearm.

I see far more people abusing and taking stupid risks with 4000 pound motor vehicles every day than I do people mis-handling firearms yet I don't hear anyone subtly hinting those who do appreciate the consequences should have their rights restricted.

[waterboy]

Normally, that comment would end the discussion because there is no joy in discussing gun issues unless its the relative merits of the stopping power of a 38 vs the weight of a 44 etc. But that very line concerning "the rights of those who responsibly use their firearms being abridged because of the irresponsiblity of a small minority" is what prompted me to start this discussion and I thank you for repeating it.

I had this same conversation with another otherwise logical, practical, responsible man. Both of you used that line of reasoning as though it has been tatooed somewhere in you brains. It doesn't make sense to me. Its fine rhetoric in that it seems to have power and complexity in its layout but doesn't hold up to scrutiny. I have lots of questions.

Comparing a 4000lb car mishandled by a driver to a speed of sound bullet travelling miles to kill indiscriminately? Really? Isn't driving a car a priviledge and not a right? What about alcohol? We certainly have a right to the pursuit of happiness which acohol temporarily provides. Yet, because of its abuse by a "small minority" we have to abridge the rights of users. One may not drink it on a public street, in a car, under age 21 or where minors are served. Shameful!

And what about that minority of users. Statistics consistently show that the owner of a gun is many times more likely to be injured by gunfire than one who doesn't own one. Same thing occurs with cars and seatbelts, motorcycles and helmets and boaters and PFD's.

There are other examples of rights being restrained, controlled and managed for the benefit of the public. The supreme court has upheld the control of rights to keep us from destroying ourselves. Why is this one so untouchable? Why is human life considered so expendable vs the rights of responsible gun owners. And lastly, what responsible gun owners would want to shoot into a public river or across a river towards a suburb? If they don't...how are their rights being abused?

[Breadburner]

Normally, that comment would end the discussion because there is no joy in discussing gun issues unless its the relative merits of the stopping power of a 38 vs the weight of a 44 etc. But that very line concerning "the rights of those who responsibly use their firearms being abridged because of the irresponsiblity of a small minority" is what prompted me to start this discussion and I thank you for repeating it.

I had this same conversation with another otherwise logical, practical, responsible man. Both of you used that line of reasoning as though it has been tatooed somewhere in you brains. It doesn't make sense to me. Its fine rhetoric in that it seems to have power and complexity in its layout but doesn't hold up to scrutiny. I have lots of questions.

Comparing a 4000lb car mishandled by a driver to a speed of sound bullet travelling miles to kill indiscriminately? Really? Isn't driving a car a priviledge and not a right? What about alcohol? We certainly have a right to the pursuit of happiness which acohol temporarily provides. Yet, because of its abuse by a "small minority" we have to abridge the rights of users. One may not drink it on a public street, in a car, under age 21 or where minors are served. Shameful!

And what about that minority of users. Statistics consistently show that the owner of a gun is many times more likely to be injured by gunfire than one who doesn't own one. Same thing occurs with cars and seatbelts, motorcycles and helmets and boaters and PFD's.

There are other examples of rights being restrained, controlled and managed for the benefit of the public. The supreme court has upheld the control of rights to keep us from destroying ourselves. Why is this one so untouchable? Why is human life considered so expendable vs the rights of responsible gun owners. And lastly, what responsible gun owners would want to shoot into a public river or across a river towards a suburb? If they don't...how are their rights being abused?

Do your-self a favor and take a posting time-out.....

[Hoss]

Do your-self a favor and take a posting time-out.....

Which is code speak for 'I don't have a retort, so p!ss off'.

[waterboy]

His boss must be coming around the corner. He never posts more than a few words.

Don't get me wrong, even though I don't own a gun, I certainly am a supporter of the right to bear arms. I just don't think that particular right should be immune to reasonable controls.

[buckeye]

No need to run around in a pant-wetting frenzy of regulation and legislation when existing statutes will effectively deal with the problem.