Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's just what the people in the synagogue in Pittsburgh did. How did that work out for them?
Still haven't seen any answers to the questions asked in the OP:
Mr. Goodnight, what is your answer?
Neither of us know the answer, maybe some could be saved or maybe they end up killing more innocent people. These are impossible situations where the assailant will always have the advantage, how does a security guard react to these situations. A security guard that never previously had any experience is suddenly confronted with an assailant with an AR15 and a few Glocks and you expect a successful outcome.
The answer is to separate these lunatics from their guns, not to put guns in synagogues, Where do you stop with that policy, guns in movie theatres, schools, sporting events, shopping malls. There is no limit to places of public gatherings.
We know what happens without one present though don't we.
You missed the point -- it wasn't the right time...it just wasn't.
You don't suggest negligence at that moment...you just don't.
It's definitely indicative of a lack of compassion and empathy. He just doesn't have normal traits that allow him to feel the depth of the grief these people were feeling.
Neither of us know the answer, maybe some could be saved or maybe they end up killing more innocent people. These are impossible situations where the assailant will always have the advantage, how does a security guard react to these situations. A security guard that never previously had any experience is suddenly confronted with an assailant with an AR15 and a few Glocks and you expect a successful outcome.
The answer is to separate these lunatics from their guns, not to put guns in synagogues, Where do you stop with that policy, guns in movie theatres, schools, sporting events, shopping malls. There is no limit to places of public gatherings.
The answer isn't more guns.
Is that the answer? Separating the lunatics from their guns?
It certainly wasn't the involvement of guns when they fire bombing churches in the 50s.
You missed the point -- it wasn't the right time...it just wasn't.
You don't suggest negligence at that moment...you just don't.
It's definitely indicative of a lack of compassion and empathy. He just doesn't have normal traits that allow him to feel the depth of the grief these people were feeling.
That wasn't suggesting negligence, that was stating a matter of fact.
You guys are always taking everything the man says out of context.
Not me. Government in general does a great job at raising costs and running ineptly.
I advocate for national reciprocity for concealed carry.
I advocate for national stand your ground.
I advocate for us, we the people, democrat republican, man woman black white brown Jew Christian Hindu etc to take matters in our hands as individuals not collective, to ensure our safety and well being. That is our responsibility.
I don't know about you, I don't care much for .gov arbitrarily telling/mandating/regulating anything in vain of my safety and well being. I don't need ABS Traction control stability control 30mpg nor 87 air bags. I dictate what I need to be safe. Not .gov hence why I've programed that nanny state crap out of my vehicles.
I actually agree with your philosophy, but I feel some regulations are needed, like regulations to protect wildlife and keep our waterways unpolluted.
Quote:
Whoever said the guards would be .gov employees? Or funded with tax dollars?
I assumed that in some way they would be.
Quote:
Not a liberal one. You're good in my book. You seem like a JFK blue dog Dem somewhat.
Personally I feel a similar way about you.
Quote:
Then here's what you do. Write Schumer write Feinstein write Biden and everyone who signed the gun free school act that's still law, and tell them their ineptitude good feel law has not worked and that it is time to face the fact that not having an armed deterrence and school faculty's right to keep and bear arms is a contributing factor to the lethality of school shootings. 0 line of defense. 0 deterrence present. Plenty of incentive for the heinous to continue seeking these schools and other gun free zones out.
I believe most of them would think I was nuts.
And one would think that teachers themselves would want guns in schools. Like a system where all the teachers choose a few of the faculty members to receive gun training, and then have a few gun safes in the school for times of emergency.
I'm sure many schools keep a supply of things like anti-inflammatory medical shots and shots for conditions like students being allergic to bee stings. And schools having a few gun safes for times of emergency is a similar thing (it just takes too long for police to arrive to a school shooting.)
And I would bet if you asked teachers who have experienced a school mass shooting if they would have liked gun safes with some of the faculty members trained with guns at the time of the school shooting (and most of them would have loved having gun safes in those schools.)
Quote:
Yeah, occupy democrat, and democratic underground say that's a lie.
Maybe a handful. Certainly Not most. That's like me saying most Republicans support illegal immigration or support abortion, legal marijuana or gay marraige. Some, maybe even a handful in the scheme of things, certainly not most.
I would believe most democrats support the 2nd Amendment (with regulations on what kind of guns and magazines you can own.)
Quote:
Because democrats want a registry and that trademarked universal background check. Resounding no. They want to play fast and loose with common sense, and make subjective preresequites for owning a firearm, turning the right into a privilege.
Like FOID cards. Chief law enforcement approval for concealed carry and storage. (See MA and NY for examples of the idiocy to own a firearm and the sneaky Hughes amendment)
Far as children are concerned, very rarely are children picking up/finding and injuring or killing themselves or another with one. CDC data shows this. A swimming pool, pond, lake, river, even a car is more of a threat to a child's safety than a firearm is. To go by that very low number to say it's an epidemic or plague or threat to society. I'm not saying for one second-we need hordes of kids offing each other and themselves with firearms in irresponsible households. Not for one second. I'm stating that truth, has been embellished. Again. Trade mark stance-Muh Childrunz!
They're not dying in massive numbers, nor are firearms even in the top 20 killer of children in this nation. It's been inflated to seem that way. Download the PDF from the CDC to verify this. You'll find a significant flaw in the reporting though with the age groupings. Less than 1 year old. 1-4, 5-14, 15-24.
When it should be 5-17 18-24.
Your above post showed me how both party's just herd voters.
If the democrats goal was solely to protect children then they would also desire more regulations for children around pools, waterways, and cars (but more regulations for children around pools just doesn't stir the political base and energize voters.)
Quote:
Food for thought. Since age 13 I have had access without adult supervision while handling and shooting firearms. Shotguns and rifles. Since Age 13 I have never been injured unless you consider garand thumb an injury. Just leave a note where I'd be or call when I had a cell phone. So long as home work was done first.
My rifles and shotguns and my father's rifles and shotguns were in a glass and wood cabinet. Not a safe. His pistols though, were in the safe.
I grew up shooting firearms since I was 4/5 years old. I'm still alive and posting obviously. I am not the only example of a "child" in possession and handling and firing firearms. I'm not some anecdotal 1 in 100 million case. I'm a millennial too.
In many areas in this nation, you will see what you call "gun culture" is the way of life for many. Guns weren't seen as toys. Guns weren't seen as the way to handle a bully or solve a problem. Cities and suburbs I can't explain the difference from rural areas. Other than parents creating the allure/forbidden fruit approach. Us rural kids didn't have shoot outs, and AR15s? We're out in fields or out in forests with 12 gauges, 30-06s, 308s, 8mm mausers, 303 enfields truly powerful rifles... hell I was buying back in the day from Cheaper Than Dirt AK kits when they were Cheaper, Than, Dirt, and making the receivers in metal shop and completing them at home in my father's shop. I had the not so "assault rifle" that shoots the same cartridge as the AR15-mini14. I didn't get my first ARs until I was 18 years old.
I was born in 1972 and grew up in a similar way. My father is a former hunter and a gun lover and collector. Ever since I was a young child he took me shooting guns (and taught me about guns), and he gave me my first .410 shotgun when I was 11 or 12 years old.
My father kept his rifles under his bed and couch, and he keep a loaded H&K 9mm handgun on top of his TV. My dad told me never to touch the gun on top of his TV, but when he was not home I would sometimes take off the cover of the guns box and look at it (but I never actually touched that gun.)
I grew up in a neighborhood on the West Bank of New Orleans, and when I was around 10 years old me and my friends shot bb guns, at around 12 we got pellet guns, and at 16 we were shooting shotguns. And many of our parents had guns and we are all still alive as well.
I remember when I was young regularly seeing trucks with gun racks on the back window with guns on them, and I don't see the gun racks anymore. And when I was younger I don't remember people complaining about guns, or even complaining about guns around kids (but things have certainly changed.)
Quote:
If you believe only 30 percent own guns I have a bridge to sell you cheap in Brooklyn. That's only 30% willing to admit they own firearms.
I will concede that America's actual gun ownership rate will be higher than 30% because of certain gun owners not admitting to owning guns. But all members of households are surveyed and household members who don't own guns have no incentive to lie.
Regardless of the actual figure a minority of Americans personally own a gun, and gun ownership rates have been falling for decades.
Quote:
That isn't republicans fault entirely. That's the pundits reporting using inflammatory buzzwords like Assault weapon/rifle. Strange more die in car accidents than by firearm accidents and firearm homicides combined... yet... no inflammatory reporting on assault vehicles with high capacity fuel tanks...
I was taught at a young age that small caliber rifles are used for small game, shotguns are used for killing birds and small fast moving game, and large caliber rifles are used for big game like deer.
Ever since I can remember I always realized that assault weapons were meant for killing human beings and I have never had a desire to own one. And personally I would not mind if assault weapons were banned for everyone except military and police personnel (but even my brother owns a M-16.)
Quote:
You'd find very few irresponsible individuals that own firearms. They're banned from ranges and arrested for negligent discharges and negligent acts.
You can't really get away with an act of negligence in today's day and age unless you live way out in the sticks/mountains with no neighbors.
Most gun owners I know keep their guns away from children, keep guns locked up or well hidden so they can't be stolen, and they would never sell a gun to someone who is mentally ill or suspected of being a terrorist. But republican politicians don't follow those gun safety measures, instead republican politicians say "we don't need any gun rules or regulations."
Bringing guns to Church. People talking about it like it's the most reasonable thing in the world. What a bizarre and disturbing disconnect.
Know what's a bizarre and disturbing disconnect?
Conflating and falsely equating those who support self defense and the 2nd Amendment with heinous scumbags.
You know what else is a bizarre and disturbing disconnect?
Giving those scumbags credibility by having fear of your fellow countrymen.
Stop giving those scumbags what they want. They want people to be scared. They want relevancy through their actions. You give it to them on a silver platter. Stop it.
Warren v D.C. Police do not have a duty to protect. That's why the Broward Coward isn't behind bars for direlection of duty.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
