Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 07-12-2022, 12:00 PM
 
72,850 posts, read 62,315,573 times
Reputation: 21798

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by villageidiot1 View Post
I don't think anyone has a solution to save 15% of the people who die from drug overdoses. Many parents don't even know their child is on drugs when they die of an overdose.
I've asked this too. How miserable does one's life have to be that they feel the need to use stuff like fentanyl in the first place?

 
Old 07-12-2022, 12:07 PM
 
Location: Texas Hill Country
23,627 posts, read 13,823,340 times
Reputation: 18822
Quote:
Originally Posted by kitty61 View Post
If everyone did not have a gun in their closet, there wouldn't be any need to protect yourself from being shot.
.......

What about protecting one's self from being stabbed, straggled, drowned, beaten to death, raped, sprayed with acid, stomped, turned into a Roman Candle, and whatever other gruesome way the bad guys might want to off you, ESPECIALLY when you don't have any way to stop them and their friends at a distance?

I get so tired of the other side quibbling the issue of violence by only focusing on one way to do it, guns, as if that was the only way to do it.
 
Old 07-12-2022, 12:42 PM
 
Location: Knoxville, TN
11,034 posts, read 5,719,665 times
Reputation: 21679
When did the Left hijack the term "mass shooting" to mean 2 or more people? "Mass" means many, not 2.

Mass production means large scale production, not Toyota making 2 cars.

Mass market means appealing to a large number of customers, not 2 people.

Mass hysteria does not mean only 2 people freaked out.

Mass media does not mean 2 TV stations.

Who believes this idiotic nonsense that the word "mass" means 2? The Left suffers from mass psychoses.
 
Old 07-13-2022, 08:18 AM
 
3,996 posts, read 1,848,566 times
Reputation: 8583
there wouldn't be any need to protect yourself from being shot.

1-million percent agree with Savannah - why must I limit my means of self-defense to match that of the attacker?


If a person is strangling me, I want to shoot them. Very simple.
 
Old 07-13-2022, 08:31 AM
 
Location: Midwest
9,308 posts, read 11,059,256 times
Reputation: 17652
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1AngryTaxPayer View Post
Whatever keeps people clicking on websites.
Indeed.

I'd say some stringent police reforms including severe penalties for when cops stand around doing nothing for 77 minutes even when they have overwhelming firepower, numbers, and equipment. That would include felony prosecution if a cop prevents a fellow officer whose wife is in a live fire classroom event from charging in to intervene.

Uvalde didn't have to be like that. One cop outside with a rifle had a bead on the shooter as he was about to enter. He had to get permission to fire, when he turned his head back around the guy was inside. A random man with a gun entering a school building, that should be a shoot on sight standing permission or order.

Door was propped open. Shooter entered. This was not about guns. It was about nonfeasance and malfeasance of duty. Every cop on site who stood around doing nothing, except maybe disinfecting his hands, should be prosecuted.
 
Old 07-13-2022, 09:41 AM
 
Location: Texas Hill Country
23,627 posts, read 13,823,340 times
Reputation: 18822
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwatted Wabbit View Post
Indeed.

I'd say some stringent police reforms including severe penalties for when cops stand around doing nothing for 77 minutes even when they have overwhelming firepower, numbers, and equipment. That would include felony prosecution if a cop prevents a fellow officer whose wife is in a live fire classroom event from charging in to intervene.

Uvalde didn't have to be like that. One cop outside with a rifle had a bead on the shooter as he was about to enter. He had to get permission to fire, when he turned his head back around the guy was inside. A random man with a gun entering a school building, that should be a shoot on sight standing permission or order.

Door was propped open. Shooter entered. This was not about guns. It was about nonfeasance and malfeasance of duty. Every cop on site who stood around doing nothing, except maybe disinfecting his hands, should be prosecuted.
I can't speak for Uvalde for I wasn't there but from another angle or two on this issue.

At a hostage negotiators' conference, part of the conversation went sort of like this, "No, the SWAT team is back behind the line, they are not charging in so long as we are talking."

Whether now or before when we didn't have negotiators, having SWAT go in and secure the situation through shock power is not always the best solution......because in the aftermath, one gets massively sued and the good guys stand to lose dearly for their side, for the people they are suppose to protect.

Now, if we want to say, shoot on sight a random man with a gun entering a school building and there is no way a law suit will result regardless of the outcome, well one might go that way. Of course, hopefully, one isn't blowing away a good guy (how many cases have there been where in the city a black plain clothes is chasing someone with his gun out and he gets blown away by the uniforms?) or the sniper isn't complicating the situation for something he didn't know but the on scene commander did.

The other thing is that the terrorists learn one's tactics and learn to use those tactics against the good guys. This was part of the situation between the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow...hostage_crisis and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beslan_school_siege . At the theater, gas was used to knock out the terrorists; at Beslan, the terrorists broke all the windows so gas could not be used (leaving out here the side effect of the gas used).

The simple shoot now situation isn't always the best.....(and again, not talking about Uvalde).
 
Old 07-13-2022, 01:12 PM
 
5,455 posts, read 3,355,016 times
Reputation: 12172
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimRom View Post
The only reason to have a gun is to keep from being shot? Interesting premise. Wrong, but interesting. I know a lot of women who carry a firearm that are far more worried about muggers, rapists, and stalkers than they are about someone else having a firearm. Why do you want them to be disarmed?
You have identified a very plausible reason to carry a pistol (vs. "combat" weapon).

I don't advocate disarming everyone, just tone it down. Own a pistol and leave it at that. Put it under your pillow, mattress, closet or nightstand. Go ahead. Own a hunting rifle and put food in your freezer. Go ahead. I don't condone it, but shoot for sport and hang those antlers on your walls. Go ahead.

If controlling the kinds of guns one can own, will help reduce violent crime, just crime period, why not? There is no harm to gun owners. You can still have a gun just not the military weapons.

Compromise a bit to help your country. Your constituional rights to own a gun were ratified 235 years ago when your world was lawless (I observe it hasn't come too far ahead since then). You aren't fighting Indians, Redcoats, Canadians, Mexicans, or Confederates and Yankees anymore! The Indians have been beaten down and imprisoned on reservations already. The Revolutionary War, War of 1812, Civil War, and the Alamo have all ended. You've seen the last of the Forts, the fur trade , the gold rush, the cavalry, and the paddle-wheel on the Missouri. Now you've got urban warfare and high-powered weapons killing each other like rebels without a cause and attacking schools and killing children. Of course you will say these people are crazy and mentally ill. You aren't. You are a responsible gun-owner that hangs their hat on an out-dated, constitutional right and that you need a collection of lethal weapons just because. It's not a need, it is a want and you have no intention of changing despite the desperation of the situation in your country and your responsibility to contribute to a solution. In other words, remain a part of the problem.
 
Old 07-13-2022, 02:02 PM
 
Location: Texas Hill Country
23,627 posts, read 13,823,340 times
Reputation: 18822
Quote:
Originally Posted by kitty61 View Post
You have identified a very plausible reason to carry a pistol (vs. "combat" weapon).

I don't advocate disarming everyone, just tone it down. Own a pistol and leave it at that. Put it under your pillow, mattress, closet or nightstand. Go ahead. Own a hunting rifle and put food in your freezer. Go ahead. I don't condone it, but shoot for sport and hang those antlers on your walls. Go ahead.

If controlling the kinds of guns one can own, will help reduce violent crime, just crime period, why not? There is no harm to gun owners. You can still have a gun just not the military weapons.

Compromise a bit to help your country. Your constituional rights to own a gun were ratified 235 years ago when your world was lawless (I observe it hasn't come too far ahead since then). You aren't fighting Indians, Redcoats, Canadians, Mexicans, or Confederates and Yankees anymore! The Indians have been beaten down and imprisoned on reservations already. The Revolutionary War, War of 1812, Civil War, and the Alamo have all ended. You've seen the last of the Forts, the fur trade , the gold rush, the cavalry, and the paddle-wheel on the Missouri. Now you've got urban warfare and high-powered weapons killing each other like rebels without a cause and attacking schools and killing children. Of course you will say these people are crazy and mentally ill. You aren't. You are a responsible gun-owner that hangs their hat on an out-dated, constitutional right and that you need a collection of lethal weapons just because. It's not a need, it is a want and you have no intention of changing despite the desperation of the situation in your country and your responsibility to contribute to a solution. In other words, remain a part of the problem.
Because the ability to bear arms is not about hunting, it is not about keeping the criminals at bay.......

.............it is about keeping the government from becoming a tyrant or, if not being able to stop them from becoming tyrants, then to make that fight EXTREMELY COSTLY for them.

As some have said about the Founding Fathers........they didn't just come back from a hunting trip!

Now, something else on a side point, one of those ironies.........how can a party argue that it is for the children, be it gun control or climate warming.....................when they are so gun ho to support abortion? As said, just one of those ironies.
 
Old 07-13-2022, 03:36 PM
 
Location: Texas Hill Country
23,627 posts, read 13,823,340 times
Reputation: 18822
Quote:
Originally Posted by kitty61 View Post
You have identified a very plausible reason to carry a pistol (vs. "combat" weapon).

I don't advocate disarming everyone, just tone it down. Own a pistol and leave it at that. Put it under your pillow, mattress, closet or nightstand. Go ahead. Own a hunting rifle and put food in your freezer. Go ahead. I don't condone it, but shoot for sport and hang those antlers on your walls. Go ahead.

If controlling the kinds of guns one can own, will help reduce violent crime, just crime period, why not? There is no harm to gun owners. You can still have a gun just not the military weapons.

Compromise a bit to help your country. Your constituional rights to own a gun were ratified 235 years ago when your world was lawless (I observe it hasn't come too far ahead since then). You aren't fighting Indians, Redcoats, Canadians, Mexicans, or Confederates and Yankees anymore! The Indians have been beaten down and imprisoned on reservations already. The Revolutionary War, War of 1812, Civil War, and the Alamo have all ended. You've seen the last of the Forts, the fur trade , the gold rush, the cavalry, and the paddle-wheel on the Missouri. Now you've got urban warfare and high-powered weapons killing each other like rebels without a cause and attacking schools and killing children. Of course you will say these people are crazy and mentally ill. You aren't. You are a responsible gun-owner that hangs their hat on an out-dated, constitutional right and that you need a collection of lethal weapons just because. It's not a need, it is a want and you have no intention of changing despite the desperation of the situation in your country and your responsibility to contribute to a solution. In other words, remain a part of the problem.

Round II!


For all the examples of who the enemies were in the past, well the enemies still exist for at the very least, there are pockets of government who apparently don't give a damn! to defend the citizens.
 
Old 07-13-2022, 06:07 PM
 
Location: Jacksonville, FL
11,103 posts, read 10,659,001 times
Reputation: 9737
Quote:
Originally Posted by kitty61 View Post
You have identified a very plausible reason to carry a pistol (vs. "combat" weapon).

I don't advocate disarming everyone, just tone it down. Own a pistol and leave it at that. Put it under your pillow, mattress, closet or nightstand. Go ahead. Own a hunting rifle and put food in your freezer. Go ahead. I don't condone it, but shoot for sport and hang those antlers on your walls. Go ahead.

If controlling the kinds of guns one can own, will help reduce violent crime, just crime period, why not? There is no harm to gun owners. You can still have a gun just not the military weapons.

Compromise a bit to help your country. Your constituional rights to own a gun were ratified 235 years ago when your world was lawless (I observe it hasn't come too far ahead since then). You aren't fighting Indians, Redcoats, Canadians, Mexicans, or Confederates and Yankees anymore! The Indians have been beaten down and imprisoned on reservations already. The Revolutionary War, War of 1812, Civil War, and the Alamo have all ended. You've seen the last of the Forts, the fur trade , the gold rush, the cavalry, and the paddle-wheel on the Missouri. Now you've got urban warfare and high-powered weapons killing each other like rebels without a cause and attacking schools and killing children. Of course you will say these people are crazy and mentally ill. You aren't. You are a responsible gun-owner that hangs their hat on an out-dated, constitutional right and that you need a collection of lethal weapons just because. It's not a need, it is a want and you have no intention of changing despite the desperation of the situation in your country and your responsibility to contribute to a solution. In other words, remain a part of the problem.
You did advocate disarming everyone:

[quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by kitty61 View Post
If everyone did not have a gun in their closet, there wouldn't be any need to protect yourself from being shot.
For the rest of your post, you evidently have no knowledge of American history, the United States Constitution, or the reason the founding fathers made sure to protect the right to own firearms. Hint: it wasn’t solely or even primarily for self defense or hunting.

And no, there is no more compromising with the anti gun crowd. The 2nd clearly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That right has already been compromised to the point that we must have government permission to own a firearm, and it hasn’t done anything to alleviate violence. Quite enough compromise, thank you. It’s time to let responsible citizens be responsible citizens, and to start treating criminals and crazy people like criminals and crazy people.
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.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top