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.
I’ve been reading a lot of posts here the past few days and notice some fresh hypocrisy that is clouding the conversation on these mass killings.
I’ve read a large number of posters here claim that mass killings and gang shootings are “not the same”. They reject the notion that the constant killings in Chicago are anywhere near the same as random mass killings and have lots of explanations for that. We’ve seen plenty of progressive mentality at work here explaining why they get worked up over one, while totally ignoring the other.
Well ... the killings are counted the same by statisticians, so all these gang killings are included in statistics on mass shootings.
Democrats are THE FIRST to toss out these gun statistics, which include all these gang shootings. Dems use those statistics as part of their headlong ideological push to ban guns, forgetting that they once dismissed those gang shootings as “not the same”. They’re happy for those gang killing statistics when it helps their push for gun control. But just try getting a Democrat to talk about Chicago gang violence on an average day.
It has led me to believe that killings by white men is the only violent crime that Democrats give a crap about. If Dems don’t feel that gang shootings are the same as mass shootings then get honest when quoting statistics and stop using gang shooting stats when it helps your cause.
I learned how to handle a bunch of pre-teen boys when I was a Cub Scout leader. I worked against their pre-planned sessions for a while until I realized their inherent wisdom:
Give them a physical activity for ten minutes, then a quiet activity for ten minutes, then another physical activity for ten minutes...repeat until the hour is over. They will be eager to come back again.
If you don't let them have a physical activity at all, they get restless and rambunctious. But if you let them be physical for too long, they'll run wild.
As they get older, the need for so many periods of physical activity will decrease--but it doesn't completely go away.
I’ve been reading a lot of posts here the past few days and notice some fresh hypocrisy that is clouding the conversation on these mass killings.
I’ve read a large number of posters here claim that mass killings and gang shootings are “not the same”. They reject the notion that the constant killings in Chicago are anywhere near the same as random mass killings and have lots of explanations for that. We’ve seen plenty of progressive mentality at work here explaining why they get worked up over one, while totally ignoring the other.
Well ... the killings are counted the same by statisticians, so all these gang killings are included in statistics on mass shootings.
Democrats are THE FIRST to toss out these gun statistics, which include all these gang shootings. Dems use those statistics as part of their headlong ideological push to ban guns, forgetting that they once dismissed those gang shootings as “not the same”. They’re happy for those gang killing statistics when it helps their push for gun control. But just try getting a Democrat to talk about Chicago gang violence on an average day.
It has led me to believe that killings by white men is the only violent crime that Democrats give a crap about. If Dems don’t feel that gang shootings are the same as mass shootings then get honest when quoting statistics and stop using gang shooting stats when it helps your cause.
"It has led me to believe that killings by white men is the only violent crime that Democrats give a crap about"
Many dems don't "give a crap about" ANY deaths. The just want to ban guns, PERIOD!
LMAO. I love your posts. You have a singular wit. Well, nobody has tried that yet. Perhaps you would be the James T Kirk in our Kobayashi Maru test. If the test parameters don't suit you ...change the conditions. There is no rule in our book that says you can't do as you suggest.
I suppose that would be a pass. As I said, it's a test of judgement. If your judgement tells you to break his neck or take him with a knife instead of shooting...I would buy that. As a course instructor. I can't argue with the thought process. I have the same fight or die mindset myself.
The skills are another matter, though. Provided I don’t feel like Rambo, any encounter will have an adrenaline dump and could involve shooting from positions you don’t get in any traditional range shooting sesh. Unless I can be the guy who is able to make a mag dump into a bad guy in that environment, after being kicked to the ground or stabbed, I don’t think I have truly earned a CCW license.
I understand your feelings. I have a license. I have never been involved in a mass shooting event, but I have and do train intensively for it. And train others as well. I have been involved in a defensive shooting. This took place on a somewhat crowded street but the attackers presented a clear line of fire. Thankfully.
The police wrote it up as a clear cut case of self defense, but the DA still mounted an investigation into me. Why? Because my weapon had modifications and my assailants were Hispanic and I am White. A White male from a rural area who was in the city. The DAs premise was that I was looking for trouble.
It didn't fly but the DA still made my life hell with an invasive and plumb silly investigation and it took me a while to get my weapon back. Had to wait on court and a judge. I opted for a simple bench trial and that worked out. The judge did not see things the way the DA wanted.
LMAO. I love your posts. You have a singular wit. Well, nobody has tried that yet. Perhaps you would be the James T Kirk in our Kobayashi Maru test. If the test parameters don't suit you ...change the conditions. There is no rule in our book that says you can't do as you suggest.
I suppose that would be a pass. As I said, it's a test of judgement. If your judgement tells you to break his neck or take him with a knife instead of shooting...I would buy that. As a course instructor. I can't argue with the thought process. I have the same fight or die mindset myself.
Thank you.
As I don't know the scenario, I have to assume that the person is still a threat to me and if I don't take him out, he will take me out. So what do I use to do so?
A thing or two or more. First, it does remind me of the deadly force training videos I went as military police. In one of them, you and your partner are responding to a complaint of a mentally ill person. Upon encountering, you find the person is 6ft tall, probably over 350lbs, and eats tin cans for fun. He head butts your partner, knocks him out, and what do you do? In the aftermath narrative, there is the question about whether you can legally shoot him or not for how much are you in danger but on the other hand, your partner is trapped in there and he now has access to your partner's gun. There is also the question about what's your HtH capability against such a person.
Take such a man on head on? Not a chance but then again, I was rated as unhonorable for outturning and attacking from behind. Another stand point of the issue is that I was taught to use chokes which are probably illegal these days.
A thing or two. As it is, if I have to respond to any situation, it will probably be hand to hand (or unarmed at least) first. It's "right there", it is how I've lived since 10, and it has been ingrained in me to the point of instinct. The basic catch of the matter is, long story short, I'm deadly if only legally (with my background, I don't doubt a counsel against me to paint me like a prize fighter, reality or not). I don't fight unless I have to and if I have to, I'm putting him in the hospital.....and it is up to the Fates whether it is the ER or the morgue. It's not hit and see what to do next, but hit (or choke) to put him on the ground and get out of there.
Finally, hand to hand, it seems to be the thing that catches people off guard. I was in a lecture where we were talking about the procedure when a cop shoots and kills someone. I raised my hand and asked what if it was hand to hand. My fellow classmates stare to look at me but the prof responded, "Same thing.".
Pretty much every future mass-shooter is currently a responsible gun owner. Once they commit their crimes, they are re-labeled as murderers.
Since every person is a potential future murderer, shouldn't we be ensuring thses people aren't plotting something.
If we gotvrid of warrants and privacy and began doing spot inspections, we might stop some murders.
We can have the police pick out random addresses and do midnight raids checking through houses looking for any evidence that a crime is afoot.
We should set up checkpoints where people present their papers and explain where theyvare going, and if it sounds odd, we take them in for questioning.
Please tell me yiu agree; otherwise, you're enabling murders, rapists, pedophiles, etc.
You don't sympathize with pedophiles do you?
We could catch pedophiles by allowing police to randomly check computers, cell phones and computers.
Let's solve crime. All we need to do is become a police state with no rights and total surveillance.
Hey, we can give rewards for tips. You can give a tip about a neighbor, and they neighbor can be arrested and interrogated forca week or so to ensure our safety. Warrants would hamper that process and allow criminals to harm others, so we can't have those.
So what do we as responsible gun owners do about mass shootings?
Pretty simple. We shoot back. We are the ones that will have to stop these criminals.
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.
