I think it is time for even more liberal gun laws in the USA. Everyone should have 3-4 handguns and minimum 2 highly powered semi-automatic assault rifles.

Then the real natural selection process starts and the problem will be solved.

Gesendet von meinem SM-G950F mit Tapatalk

I work in a building that is part of the WTC site in NYC. We now have 'active shooter' education at least once a year because of the current threats that could happen within or adjacent to our building. I used to work with a woman who's father was killed in a mass gun murder event.

Some are quick to jump to blame current President Trump, but there were plenty of these gun terrorism acts under Obama, Both Bushes, Clinton, and Reagan (who was almost murdered by a gun), and Carter, although Trump's hateful spewing against immigrants (legal and illegal), Blacks, Hispanics/Latinos, Muslims, even women, may be encouraging it slightly more from 'right wing' males.

af773atmsp wrote:

You know what's worse than a weak country? A weak country that doesn't admit it's weak and does nothing to try to improve itself. That is how I see the USA.

So what country are you from? Do yo live in the USA or are you a foreigner?

Mike Drop

It’s absolutely relevant to the number of people who died.

LittleSprocket wrote:

I have one question for everyone here that is bent on restricting firearms ownership. The war on drugs has failed, drugs come over the border by the metric ton daily. We can’t seem to stop illegal aliens from coming across the border and everyone knows the bloodbath and how successful banning alcohol was in the 1920’s... what makes you think that banning firearms today is going to stop these horrific events?

Statistics of other countries ? UK, Italy, Germany, Finland, Norway, Denmark, Spain, France, Portugal, ...
The problem with firearms is that the goal is to kill, and everybody can buy one in the US. The problem is NOT that firearms are available by legal or illegal means, it's that there are so many of them.
If firearms were banned, you would have much less of them in the streets.

And of course, the usual ridiculous arguments: "bad guys will always have guns". So what, they have in all countries, and still you have more than 10 times more people killed in the US by firearms than in France (excluding suicides in both countries).

MikeDrop wrote:

af773atmsp wrote:

You know what's worse than a weak country? A weak country that doesn't admit it's weak and does nothing to try to improve itself. That is how I see the USA.

So what country are you from? Do yo live in the USA or are you a foreigner?

Mike Drop

I live in the USA. If anyone wants to label me un-American go right ahead, but at least I'm trying to actually make this country better while others would rather live with the status quo and pretend everything is fine.

af773atmsp wrote:

MikeDrop wrote:

af773atmsp wrote:

You know what's worse than a weak country? A weak country that doesn't admit it's weak and does nothing to try to improve itself. That is how I see the USA.

So what country are you from? Do yo live in the USA or are you a foreigner?

Mike Drop

I live in the USA. If anyone wants to label me un-American go right ahead, but at least I'm trying to actually make this country better while others would rather live with the status quo and pretend everything is fine.

I don't plan on labeling you as anything one way or another. I simply wanted to understand your perspective. As to your assertion that "it's weak and does nothing to try to improve itself" - I disagree with you, there are plenty of positive examples readily available that show the opposite. Sure, we have many problems, and sure we struggle to solve many of them because of the many different stakeholders and interests who have a voice. But weak? no.

Mike Drop

A lot of the rush to judgment here is quite scary. Years of misguided alarmism over "Islamic terrorism" resulted in the erosion of civil liberties, militarization of police, and a host of other bad outcomes. Applying the same alarmist logic to "white nationalist terrorism" is likely to produce a host of similarly bad outcomes.

Sometimes we never learn.

The issue cannot be "mental illness", as almost all (maybe all) of the shooters since the current upsurge in mass killings were just garden variety members of society before they went on their sprees: possibly a little quirky, but few of them had done anything that stood out enough to have allowed the restriction of their civil liberties. Accusing people of mental issues is a real civil liberties issue and were it to become any kind of norm it is a certainty that it would be abused. Restricting the "mentally ill" is a dead end street which would only serve to provide employment for the legal profession.

If anyone really wants to face a truth that could matter, that truth is that there is no point in the public having access to automatic loading guns of any kind: pistols or long guns. Revolvers and bolt action guns would fulfill any need for "sport" shooting, hunting or protection that people feel they have a dying need for.

And yes these 'semi-auto" guns should be confiscated from people who refuse to surrender them.

Anything other than the above is just a placebo and we might as well just go back to bickering about what signs were on the walls of the places where mass murders take place..

Please don't turn this thread into a string of personal attacks. If you can't discuss the topic respectfully, then please don't post.

✈️ atcsundevil

MikeDrop wrote:

af773atmsp wrote:

MikeDrop wrote:

So what country are you from? Do yo live in the USA or are you a foreigner?

Mike Drop

I live in the USA. If anyone wants to label me un-American go right ahead, but at least I'm trying to actually make this country better while others would rather live with the status quo and pretend everything is fine.

I don't plan on labeling you as anything one way or another. I simply wanted to understand your perspective. As to your assertion that "it's weak and does nothing to try to improve itself" - I disagree with you, there are plenty of positive examples readily available that show the opposite. Sure, we have many problems, and sure we struggle to solve many of them because of the many different stakeholders and interests who have a voice. But weak? no.

Mike Drop

Please give me examples of how we're improving in terms of gun violence. So far it seems we've done the complete opposite of progress.

af773atmsp wrote:

MikeDrop wrote:

af773atmsp wrote:

I live in the USA. If anyone wants to label me un-American go right ahead, but at least I'm trying to actually make this country better while others would rather live with the status quo and pretend everything is fine.

I don't plan on labeling you as anything one way or another. I simply wanted to understand your perspective. As to your assertion that "it's weak and does nothing to try to improve itself" - I disagree with you, there are plenty of positive examples readily available that show the opposite. Sure, we have many problems, and sure we struggle to solve many of them because of the many different stakeholders and interests who have a voice. But weak? no.

Mike Drop

Please give me examples of how we're improving in terms of gun violence. So far it seems we've done the complete opposite of progress.

The numbers don’t lie.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_vio ... weapon.svg

[twoid][/twoid]

stl07 wrote:

VTKillarney wrote:

bgm wrote:

What's your solution?

Mental health treatment.

Would be nice, except congress removed Obama era mental health gun control regulations.

Republicans whining about mental health is like the Menendez brothers whining about being orphans. It’s insane. And it looooooooong predated Trump.

MaverickM11 wrote:

[twoid][/twoid]

stl07 wrote:

VTKillarney wrote:

Mental health treatment.

Would be nice, except congress removed Obama era mental health gun control regulations.

Republicans whining about mental health is like the Menendez brothers whining about being orphans. It’s insane. And it looooooooong predated Trump.

True...but now the entire Gun-Yahoo crowd have the national leader they've longed for, they see flipping off the law as 'hey the prez does it, so it must be okay'.

He is their choice unquestionably, not Hillary, Obama etc...

The insanity will not get better, but worse - guaranteed with spineless leaders like we have now.


BN747

Kiwirob wrote:

LittleSprocket wrote:

stl07 wrote:

Would be nice, except congress removed Obama era mental health gun control regulations.

What regulations were that? The only ones I recall was that those that received social security were no longer banned from owning outright. I bought multiple firearms during his tenure and I never had to deal with any mental health requirements, even with having PTSD from fighting in Afghanistan.

If you have ptsd you sure as hell shouldn’t be allowed to own a firearm of any sort.

I find it quite horrifying that someone with ptsd can own a gun.

Kiwirob and I are miles apart on social issues but on this I 100% agree with his post!

From the Washington Post: “President Trump called Monday for “strong background checks” in the wake of the mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton, Ohio... [Trump said,] We must have something good, if not GREAT, come out of these two tragic events!”

He will addressing the people today.

This is excellent leadership. It’s no surprise given how much Trump cares about America and it’s people.

Of course he is have to get something past the Democrats. That may not be easy. For example, in 2016, Republicans in the Senate voted unanimously for a bill that would ban people from buying guns who were on the FBI’s terrorist watch list. The NRA even supported it. Every single Democrat voted against it.

bgm wrote:

I believe that gun licenses should be issued complete with criminal background check, mental health exam, and semi-automatic assault rifles should be banned for civilian use. If you don't pass the check, you don't get to own a gun.

If you are mentally stable and a law abiding citizen, then it shouldn't be a problem, right?

Yes to all of that. I’d also add some sort of proficiency check as part of getting a weapon.

So just a few things to point out about why nothing is going to change.

1.https://time.com/5626478/trump-racist-t ... migration/
2. Trump's quote from today where he blames the media, yet says nothing about his own vile tweets .

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/sta ... 5608610816


How can we as a country move out of this hate filled cycle, when Trump is part of the hate?

Kamala Harris responded to the mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton by sending out an email which cited the tragedies as a reason to donate money to her presidential campaign. Nothing like using a tragedy for personal gain.

VTKillarney wrote:

Kamala Harris responded to the mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton by sending out an email which cited the tragedies as a reason to donate money to her presidential campaign. Nothing like using a tragedy for personal gain.

Is this really noteworthy? I recall a certain presidential candidate routinely parading the families of very specific murder victims for personal/electoral gains?

Seems to me this is part and parcel of political campaigning. Always was. Always will be.

ElPistolero wrote:

VTKillarney wrote:

Kamala Harris responded to the mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton by sending out an email which cited the tragedies as a reason to donate money to her presidential campaign. Nothing like using a tragedy for personal gain.

Is this really noteworthy? I recall a certain presidential candidate routinely parading the families of very specific murder victims for personal/electoral gains?

Seems to me this is part and parcel of political campaigning. Always was. Always will be.

No, it hasn’t always been the case. A direct appeal for money certainly hasn’t been. Kamala has taken this to a whole new level.

Let’s address the lie that the Trump administration "rolled back" Obama administration rules that kept guns out of the hands of the "mentally ill." The regulation had nothing to do with "mental illness" and everything to do with the lack of due process. The Obama era rules designated anyone who needed a representative payee through the Social Security Administration and Veterans Affairs “mentally unfit.” If a person met that criteria, their name was entered into the NICS database. These are people who require some assistance handling their finances and slogging through the federal bureaucracy. The Obama administration turned them into criminals. You know who opposed it? The ACLU, which lobbied for repeal.

Trump had the novel idea of due process and requiring that someone declared to be mentally unfit actually be mentally unfit.

VTKillarney wrote:

No, it hasn’t always been the case. A direct appeal for money certainly hasn’t been. Kamala has taken this to a whole new level.

Oh. You're objecting to the fact that she is using them to make a "direct appeal" for money for her campaign, as opposed to a presidential candidate who parades the families of very specific murder victims at campaigns in a bid to "indirectly" secure funding/support for his campaign.

Would you feel better about this if she paraded the family victims of El Paso at her campaigns and secured funding that way, instead of appealing for it directly?

Sounds like splitting hairs. If one is morally dubious, so is the other. Why does the "level" - "whole new" or otherwise, matter.

Seems hypocritical.

VTKillarney wrote:

Of course he is have to get something past the Democrats. That may not be easy. For example, in 2016, Republicans in the Senate voted unanimously for a bill that would ban people from buying guns who were on the FBI’s terrorist watch list. The NRA even supported it. Every single Democrat voted against it.

False.

VTKillarney wrote:

Kamala Harris responded to the mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton by sending out an email which cited the tragedies as a reason to donate money to her presidential campaign. Nothing like using a tragedy for personal gain.

Show us the text of the email.

casinterest wrote:

So just a few things to point out about why nothing is going to change.

1.https://time.com/5626478/trump-racist-t ... migration/
2. Trump's quote from today where he blames the media, yet says nothing about his own vile tweets .

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/sta ... 5608610816


How can we as a country move out of this hate filled cycle, when Trump is part of the hate?

Thoughts and prayers for "Toledo"

ElPistolero wrote:

VTKillarney wrote:

No, it hasn’t always been the case. A direct appeal for money certainly hasn’t been. Kamala has taken this to a whole new level.

Oh. You're objecting to the fact that she is using them to make a "direct appeal" for money for her campaign, as opposed to a presidential candidate who parades the families of very specific murder victims at campaigns in a bid to "indirectly" secure funding/support for his campaign.

Would you feel better about this if she paraded the family victims of El Paso at her campaigns and secured funding that way, instead of appealing for it directly?

Sounds like splitting hairs. If one is morally dubious, so is the other. Why does the "level" - "whole new" or otherwise, matter.

Seems hypocritical.

Parading 'angel moms' for your racist supporters to cheer and throw money at you as a-o-k

af773atmsp wrote:

MikeDrop wrote:

af773atmsp wrote:

I live in the USA. If anyone wants to label me un-American go right ahead, but at least I'm trying to actually make this country better while others would rather live with the status quo and pretend everything is fine.

I don't plan on labeling you as anything one way or another. I simply wanted to understand your perspective. As to your assertion that "it's weak and does nothing to try to improve itself" - I disagree with you, there are plenty of positive examples readily available that show the opposite. Sure, we have many problems, and sure we struggle to solve many of them because of the many different stakeholders and interests who have a voice. But weak? no.

Mike Drop

Please give me examples of how we're improving in terms of gun violence. So far it seems we've done the complete opposite of progress.

What’s the opposite of progress? Congress.

MaverickM11 wrote:

VTKillarney wrote:

Kamala Harris responded to the mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton by sending out an email which cited the tragedies as a reason to donate money to her presidential campaign. Nothing like using a tragedy for personal gain.

Show us the text of the email.

You still lookin' for that Kamala email?

MaverickM11 wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

VTKillarney wrote:

Kamala Harris responded to the mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton by sending out an email which cited the tragedies as a reason to donate money to her presidential campaign. Nothing like using a tragedy for personal gain.

Show us the text of the email.

You still lookin' for that Kamala email?

It’s worse than just Kamala.

https://mb.ntd.com/democrats-fundraisin ... 66164.html

The New Democratic slogan: “Dead bodies for thee. Money for me!”

Absolutely disgusting.

VTKillarney wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

Show us the text of the email.

You still lookin' for that Kamala email?

It’s worse than just Kamala.

https://mb.ntd.com/democrats-fundraisin ... 66164.html

“If you’re with me, split a contribution to Giffords, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, and Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America.”

Wow. Split a donation between three gun violence prevention groups, in the wake of two more episodes of gun violence. I can see how preventing gun violence would be triggering for you. How outrageous. Would be much better if they tried to profit off Benghazi, like Republicans, right? Because Benghazi happens all the time too But thanks for the phony outrage and the random Falun Gong website.

Disgusting!! We need to ban most guns in the U.S. This is not 1776 and we do not need to allow unlimited, uncontrolled access to guns in this country. We need to stand against racism, fear, and weapons of death. It is gross that many on the right stand for fetuses and weapons instead of actual living, human beings.

Trump pans to visit the site of the El Paso terror attacks on Wednesday. Many locals want him like the plague. He also owes the city $100's of $1000 for his anti-immigrant rally earlier this year for police and other security and safety needs and likely this visit will cost $100's of $1000's more to the city that has huge costs from this terror act.
Instead of covering the distraction that Trump's visit will be, perhaps more media attention on the good of people in this tragedy. A local charity group is arranging and paying for funerals and burial sites for US citizen victims, embalming and transportation costs to Mexican nationals. 100's gave blood. Some gave their lives, got injured or were close enough to be risk of being shot trying to save their fellow humans during the attacks.

VTKillarney wrote:

From the Washington Post: “President Trump called Monday for “strong background checks” in the wake of the mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton, Ohio... [Trump said,] We must have something good, if not GREAT, come out of these two tragic events!”

He will addressing the people today.

This is excellent leadership. It’s no surprise given how much Trump cares about America and it’s people.

Of course he is have to get something past the Democrats. That may not be easy. For example, in 2016, Republicans in the Senate voted unanimously for a bill that would ban people from buying guns who were on the FBI’s terrorist watch list. The NRA even supported it. Every single Democrat voted against it.

You insist on posting the same stuff about Democrats in this and the Dayton thread. The House passed two bills - Mitch won't take them up. Are they what is needed? I don't know, but it is time to start a conversation in Congress. Virtually everyone agrees that background checks are necessary. Let's start there.

VTKillarney wrote:

From the Washington Post: “President Trump called Monday for “strong background checks” in the wake of the mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton, Ohio... [Trump said,] We must have something good, if not GREAT, come out of these two tragic events!”

He will addressing the people today.

This is excellent leadership. It’s no surprise given how much Trump cares about America and it’s people.

Of course he is have to get something past the Democrats. That may not be easy. For example, in 2016, Republicans in the Senate voted unanimously for a bill that would ban people from buying guns who were on the FBI’s terrorist watch list. The NRA even supported it. Every single Democrat voted against it.

This isn't as simple as you would have it be. The Senate Democrats proposed a blanket ban on gun sales to those on the watch list, the Republicans voted it down with the support of the NRA. The Republicans put forth a proposal with weaker restraints which all Democrats voted against.

Kellyanne Conjob’s interview with Christiane Amanpour, unsurprisingly, was an example of everything wrong with the WH - no straight answers to questions, no taking of responsibility, and wild claims of things done that are demonstrably not done. Also a bizarre choice of wording - ‘his FBI’, as if the DOJ no longer works for the people. And people wonder why everyone’s cynical...

No guns, no shootings.

It appears the mother was a bit concerned, but maybe not concerned enough.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/07/us/el-pa ... index.html

The El Paso shooting suspect's mother called the Allen, Texas, Police Department weeks before the shooting because she was concerned about her son owning an "AK" type firearm, lawyers for the family confirmed to CNN.

The mother contacted police because she was worried about her son owning the weapon given his age, maturity level and lack of experience handling such a firearm, attorneys Chris Ayres and R. Jack Ayres said.
During the call, the mother was transferred to a public safety officer who told her that -- based on her description of the situation -- her son, 21, was legally allowed to purchase the weapon, the attorneys said. The mother did not provide her name or her son's name, and police did not seek any additional information from her before the call concluded, they added

casinterest wrote:

It appears the mother was a bit concerned, but maybe not concerned enough.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/07/us/el-pa ... index.html

The El Paso shooting suspect's mother called the Allen, Texas, Police Department weeks before the shooting because she was concerned about her son owning an "AK" type firearm, lawyers for the family confirmed to CNN.

The mother contacted police because she was worried about her son owning the weapon given his age, maturity level and lack of experience handling such a firearm, attorneys Chris Ayres and R. Jack Ayres said.
During the call, the mother was transferred to a public safety officer who told her that -- based on her description of the situation -- her son, 21, was legally allowed to purchase the weapon, the attorneys said. The mother did not provide her name or her son's name, and police did not seek any additional information from her before the call concluded, they added

And a concerned grandmother possibly saved Texas from another massacre.

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... 924646001/

Officers searched the room Williams rented at the hotel he planned to target and found the rifle, 17 loaded magazines and multiple knives. Williams told authorities he laid out his weapons so that they could take them.

He of course had purchased it recently and legally (other than writing a wrong address).

Just a reminder of the tragedy of this shooting.

https://www.npr.org/2019/08/08/74909924 ... e-together

Never understood the fascination with guns in America. I am born and raised here and would be 100% for banning all guns... Or at least making them extremely difficult to obtain with heavy restrictions (no automatics, for example).

It needs to be done. But won't. Because people love their guns for whatever reason and will come up with 1001 ways to justify why they need/want them.

invertalon wrote:

It needs to be done. But won't. Because people love their guns for whatever reason and will come up with 1001 ways to justify why they need/want them.

There's nothing wrong with wanting guns because you like to shoot at pieces of paper, game or vermin. Or even just because you like having them, shooting them and collecting them (I have 3 myself, plus my wife's that makes 4 guns at home, which is certainly unusual this side of the pond).

The challenge is keeping them off the hands of the wrong people and most countries have figured out that you need a heavy handed approach to that. Weeding the bad people means good people need to go through several levels of hurdles and challenges.

There is no other way besides accepting that mass shootings do and will keep happening.

"Our constitution does not allow the death penalty. We do not want the death penalty, as a matter of conviction. Life imprisonment does not exist (in Mexico), either," he told a press conference.

"I have given instructions to explore the possibility of requesting this person's extradition," he added.

"We do not want impunity. We want the punishment to serve as an example.... Given that this was a premeditated crime, and all the aggravating factors, he would face a long time in prison in Mexico... more than 50 years."

Can somebody please explain to the President of Mexico that since this horrendous crime occurred on American soil the laws and Constitution of the United States are what dictate his punishment, not Mexico’s. Mexico has zero standing to extradite.
https://news.yahoo.com/mexico-does-not- ... 27636.html

Which he will doubtless find.

Incidentally, why would they want him?.

Ken777 wrote:

Another Second Amendment Celebration. Gun lovers will continue to claim how much more important that they have access to AK-47s than "other people" simply having their lives. do people really need assault rifles to go deer hunting? And if they are a lousy shot of course they will need the bump stock and extra large capacity magazines in order to have a chance to kill a deer.

And intelligent management of gun sales (something beyond the NRA's mental capacity) with background checks for all gun sales, training and an actual license showing the puncher/owner's face and fingerprint (just like my driver's license) in order to buy or own a gun. And, because gun ownership directly contributes to major medical costs in this country from GSWs lets have a per bullet tax to help pay the costs of treating those GSWs. 10¢ a round used to be reasonable but medical inflation has gone through the roof so we should be starting at 25¢ a round. Maybe lower for 22s as they do less damage.

While we can mourn those killed today, just like all other mass shootings that the US is famous for, at some point we need to say that enough is enough, Hopefully before someone you or I love gets killed.

Placing excessive financial burdens (i.e. taxes) on constitutional rights is illegal. That's why we don't have poll taxes anymore. Also, there's no reason that poor people should be prohibited from protecting themselves while rich people feel no pain when they buy their ammunition.

"Assault rifles" kill less people in the US each year than blunt objects. They actually are useful as home defense weapons. Moreover, you can't outlaw everything that people don't "need". We don't need automobiles that can go more than 40 MPH. We don't need high-speed internet. We don't need fancy food. And so on.

seb146 wrote:

What "well regulated militia" did this right wing domestic terrorist belong to? And the right wing domestic terrorist in Gilroy? And the right wing domestic terrorist in Dayton? Anyone else see a pattern here?

The domestic terrorist in Dayton was a fan of Democrats and Antifa. That makes him left-wing, not right-wing.

MikeDrop wrote:

LittleSprocket wrote:

stl07 wrote:

Would be nice, except congress removed Obama era mental health gun control regulations.

What regulations were that? The only ones I recall was that those that received social security were no longer banned from owning outright. I bought multiple firearms during his tenure and I never had to deal with any mental health requirements, even with having PTSD from fighting in Afghanistan.

We need to repeal the 2nd amendment. We need to do it legally, and we need to have whatever replaces it define mandatory life sentences for anyone using a gun during a crime.

Totally possible in the US today. We banned beer once. So it’s not impossible.

Mike Drop

It is fundamentally impossible to repeal the second amendment. That idea is a nonstarter. I mean technically it is possible, just like technically it is possible that Trump and the Republicans could win the 2020 election with 100% of the vote in every single state....but possible doesn't mean that it has any realistic chance of happening.

Moreover, there is no need to repeal the second amendment. More people are murdered with blunt objects in the United States than are killed with rifles of any kind. In a country with more guns on the street than there are people, and where police can take hours to respond to 911 calls (if they even show up period), prohibiting self-defense is a non-starter.

Spar wrote:

The issue cannot be "mental illness", as almost all (maybe all) of the shooters since the current upsurge in mass killings were just garden variety members of society before they went on their sprees: possibly a little quirky, but few of them had done anything that stood out enough to have allowed the restriction of their civil liberties. Accusing people of mental issues is a real civil liberties issue and were it to become any kind of norm it is a certainty that it would be abused. Restricting the "mentally ill" is a dead end street which would only serve to provide employment for the legal profession.

If anyone really wants to face a truth that could matter, that truth is that there is no point in the public having access to automatic loading guns of any kind: pistols or long guns. Revolvers and bolt action guns would fulfill any need for "sport" shooting, hunting or protection that people feel they have a dying need for.

And yes these 'semi-auto" guns should be confiscated from people who refuse to surrender them.

Anything other than the above is just a placebo and we might as well just go back to bickering about what signs were on the walls of the places where mass murders take place..

I'd be fine banning semi-automatic weapons as long as every single criminal was disarmed first. Unless that happens (and it won't), I'm keeping my means of defending myself and my family. When seconds count, the police are minutes away.

N1611B wrote:

When seconds count, the police are minutes away.

When rational thought is required, some just resort to cliches.

Tell me, do you always win these imaginary gunfights you have?

Spar wrote:

N1611B wrote:

When seconds count, the police are minutes away.

When rational thought is required, some just resort to cliches.

Tell me, do you always win these imaginary gunfights you have?

There are more instances of defensive gun use each year than there are gun homicides. To the people whose lives were saved by their ability to protect themselves, those "gunfights" are anything but imaginary. I also work in emergency services, so I think I have more experience in this realm than you do. Please tell me, and support your claim with links, which cities have police forces that have response times of less than 60 seconds on average. I'll wait.

N1611B wrote:

Spar wrote:

N1611B wrote:

When seconds count, the police are minutes away.

When rational thought is required, some just resort to cliches.

Tell me, do you always win these imaginary gunfights you have?

I also work in emergency services, so I think I have more experience in this realm than you do.

It's clear to me that you're living in a land of imaginary scenarios, not actual experience.

N1611B wrote:

There are more instances of defensive gun use each year than there are gun homicides.

If you were to give that sentence a moment's thought you would see how meaningless and without correlation the comparison between whatever undefined "defensive gun use" is and actual deaths of people.

N1611B wrote:

To the people whose lives were saved by their ability to protect themselves, those "gunfights" are anything but imaginary.

The lives which were saved need to be adjusted for the number of those lives that were put in jeopardy by the near unrestrained availability of guns - which is what put those lives in danger in the first place. The number derived from that adjustment will be about zero.

If you really knew anything about this subject, you would be very aware that the best way to survive a gunfight is to not get in one.

N1611B wrote:

Please tell me, and support your claim with links, which cities have police forces that have response times of less than 60 seconds on average. I'll wait.

This is a (meaningless) strawman argument, which was born out of the need to justify a cliche. Not very good debate technique.

Spar wrote:

N1611B wrote:

Spar wrote:

When rational thought is required, some just resort to cliches.

Tell me, do you always win these imaginary gunfights you have?

I also work in emergency services, so I think I have more experience in this realm than you do.

It's clear to me that you're living in a land of imaginary scenarios, not actual experience.

N1611B wrote:

There are more instances of defensive gun use each year than there are gun homicides.

If you were to give that sentence a moment's thought you would see how meaningless and without correlation the comparison between whatever undefined "defensive gun use" is and actual deaths of people.

N1611B wrote:

To the people whose lives were saved by their ability to protect themselves, those "gunfights" are anything but imaginary.

The lives which were saved need to be adjusted for the number of those lives that were put in jeopardy by the near unrestrained availability of guns - which is what put those lives in danger in the first place. The number derived from that adjustment will be about zero.

If you really knew anything about this subject, you would be very aware that the best way to survive a gunfight is to not get in one.

N1611B wrote:

Please tell me, and support your claim with links, which cities have police forces that have response times of less than 60 seconds on average. I'll wait.

This is a (meaningless) strawman argument, which was born out of the need to justify a cliche. Not very good debate technique.

You are free to choose to be a defenseless victim, just like I am free to choose not to be one. Once again, I've treated dozens of gunshot victims. Nothing I've seen or done is "imaginary." When your home is being broken into in the middle of the night, the thought that the police might be 15 minutes away is not comforting.

N1611B wrote:

Spar wrote:

N1611B wrote:

I also work in emergency services, so I think I have more experience in this realm than you do.

It's clear to me that you're living in a land of imaginary scenarios, not actual experience.

N1611B wrote:

There are more instances of defensive gun use each year than there are gun homicides.

If you were to give that sentence a moment's thought you would see how meaningless and without correlation the comparison between whatever undefined "defensive gun use" is and actual deaths of people.

N1611B wrote:

To the people whose lives were saved by their ability to protect themselves, those "gunfights" are anything but imaginary.

The lives which were saved need to be adjusted for the number of those lives that were put in jeopardy by the near unrestrained availability of guns - which is what put those lives in danger in the first place. The number derived from that adjustment will be about zero.

If you really knew anything about this subject, you would be very aware that the best way to survive a gunfight is to not get in one.

N1611B wrote:

Please tell me, and support your claim with links, which cities have police forces that have response times of less than 60 seconds on average. I'll wait.

This is a (meaningless) strawman argument, which was born out of the need to justify a cliche. Not very good debate technique.

You are free to choose to be a defenseless victim, just like I am free to choose not to be one. Once again, I've treated dozens of gunshot victims. Nothing I've seen or done is "imaginary." When your home is being broken into in the middle of the night, the thought that the police might be 15 minutes away is not comforting.

That’s what shotguns and handguns are for. Excellent commentary here from Adm. Mike Mullen-ret:

I spent my entire professional life taking up arms in defense of our country, serving in wars from Vietnam to Afghanistan, and ending my service as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. During the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan I saw how our ground forces and special forces sought to improve the precision and lethality of their weapons, which took enemy lives and saved their own. Such is the nature of war.

But these weapons are for war; they are not for sport...Now is the time for courage. We must take steps to make our country and its citizens safe from this growing national-security threat by banning these assault weapons with their large magazines, and by putting in place comprehensive and universal background checks without loopholes. The United States accounts for some 4 percent of the global population but holds about 45 percent of the civilian firearms in the world. We are way out of balance.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... r-children