Re: the efficacy of having concealed carriers in mass shooting situations.

 

Off topic posts have been removed.  A post containing offensive comments has been removed. 

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Now you are being silly. Why would a mob a thousand strong attack me? A gang of a few bad people attacks people all the time- home invasions etc.

I want to be able to protect myself from an entirely possible situation, one that does happen.

I am being silly?? How about answering the question; where do you draw the line regarding which weapons should be allowed for use by private citizens?

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Are you calling the founding fathers stupid?

Personally that's what I'm calling those who think the anachronistic 2nd Amendment is still relevant today.

Edited February 23, 20188 yr by Becker

anyone with a gun can slaughter humans, and the more ammunition and the faster the gun can fire, the more victims.

 

very few humans can kill hand to hand without firearms, its a hurdle both physically and mentally, and fewer still can engage several other humans simultaneously.

 

3 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

 

I think schools are the weakest link, not because they are gun-free zones but instead because those who can be found there have only partially developed minds that lack reasoning abilities. Minds that are further crippled by being on social media every minute of the day from the time they wake up in the morning till the moment they fall asleep at night. I don't think any of us would recognize high school life as it exists today compared to what we have known.

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/undercover-high-smartphones-2018-2

 

 

 

I think the Oval Office is the weakest link, not because it is a gun-free zone but instead because the one who can be found there has only partially developed mind that lacks reasoning abilities. A mind that is further crippled by being obsessed with social media every minute of the day from the time they wake up in the morning till the moment they fall asleep at night. I don't think any of us would recognize Oval Office conduct as it exists today compared to what we have known.

If everybody ,on the  world would be armed,

fraudulent politicians would not last long ,violant idiots would not live long .....

Time for the helpless good people to protect themselves , it is stupid to think police is going to protect you.They can't be there in time.

Also a lot of money can be saved ,money they spend on defending proven criminals ......

No criminal will walk out because of juristic mistakes ,from now on the guy who makes these mistakes will get the punishment of the criminal he let go.

greetings

Solomon

4 hours ago, wwest5829 said:

The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides that "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects...

One can argue that my reading has been focused on government entities, not individuals but that does not preclude the application as I stated.

 

It was Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes who famously explained the our “Right” to free speech does not give one the “ Right” to yell “ fire “ in a crowded theater when there is no fire. It is the purpose of the Supreme Court of the US to weigh out Constitutional conflicts including the balancing of “Rights”.

You are completely reading the Constitution wrong. The Constitution and the Amendments are Rights & Protections for citizens FROM THE GOVERNMENT.......It's not a protection from other citizens breaking the law. That is covered by the criminal code. That's why you don't see any mention in the constitution of things like Burglary or Murder. 

 

 

Edited February 23, 20188 yr by Time Traveller

4 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

BECAUSE I'M EXERCISING MY RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS.

Better stick to 'bare' arms - otherwise some upright cretin may just shoot you. 

The US gun lobby would slam Jesus Christ himself, had he still been alive and dared to say one word about gun control.

 

 

4 hours ago, The Old Bull said:

The US military are over one million strong. The idea of a militia of religious nutters and gun freaks could put up any effective opposition is ludicrous. The whole second amendment needs to by scrapped.

There were thinking of Foreign militias when they wrote that, Old Bull....but even still, 1 million is not really a lot, when you consider probably half of those servicepeople support the 2nd amendment rights of their fellow citizens ,.....And the American military did get their asses kicked in Afghanistan and Iraq.....both countries with much less people with guns. 

Given that recent track record, I would say those "nutters and freaks" would probably win

Edited February 23, 20188 yr by Time Traveller

 

I have been eligible to vote for 37 years and never enrolled, no fines.

14 minutes ago, Time Traveller said:

.It's not a protection from other citizens breaking the law. That is covered by the criminal code.

So, the argument about the only way to stop an armed criminal/mentally unstable is with a gun, therefore justifying the gun lobby's right to bear arms. BUT you just said that is the job of the Police!

 

Seems that some members (if not all) of the gun lobby just use specious arguments to justify their stance?

 

And what have you physically done to stop the shootings of school kids? You folks have the armaments, do something to help your fellow citizens (the kids and their teachers)!

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

 Statistically, there are over 8,000 home invasions per day in  North America 

http://www.lockjawsecurity.com/pdf/LockBumpingFactSheet.pdf

 

An estimated 3.7 million burglaries occurred each year on
average from 2003 to 2007.
*A household member was present in roughly 1 million burglaries
and became victims of violent crimes in 266,560 burglaries.

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vdhb.txt

Because every one has a gun, the burglar will have one. He will have it ready to use, you won't. So your gun will be pretty useless anyway, like the security guard at the last school shooting who was armed and didn't do his job. Gun control will take care that burglars more than likely will not have a gun. Get proper locks and VDO surveillance and they will not even try to rob you but go to a lesser protected house. 

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Are you calling the founding fathers stupid?

Did i?

10 minutes ago, lvr181 said:

So, the argument about the only way to stop an armed criminal/mentally unstable is with a gun, therefore justifying the gun lobby's right to bear arms. BUT you just said that is the job of the Police!

 

Seems that some members (if not all) of the gun lobby just use specious arguments to justify their stance?

 

And what have you physically done to stop the shootings of school kids? You folks have the armaments, do something to help your fellow citizens (the kids and their teachers)!

No I didn't say it's the job of the police. I said that the Constitution  allows law abiding citizens to own firearms. In the case of crimes against the person (by other persons) that is covered in criminal law not constitutional law. All persons have the right to self defense including the use of deadly force if necessary. That is covered under criminal law which varies state by state.

The fact that schools are legally gun free zones, means there's little civillians can do to protect schools. And what many people have already said, criminals do not follow laws, so even if something was outlawed, people would still break the law.

 

 

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If a gang of people that mean me harm come to kill me, which is a very real possibility in my country, I want the means to defend myself, and we are banned from owning handguns. A bolt action rifle just doesn't do the job.

I am well into my retirement age and have lived in a lot of countries but have never lived in paranoia to the point I need to be prepared in case "a gang of people that mean me harm come to kill me".   It has never ever entered my mind nor been necessary....but then I have never wanted to even visit, let alone live, in the usa, it must be terrible.

Off topic posts have been removed. 

1 hour ago, lucjoker said:

If everybody ,on the  world would be armed,

fraudulent politicians would not last long ,violant idiots would not live long .....

Time for the helpless good people to protect themselves , it is stupid to think police is going to protect you.They can't be there in time.

Also a lot of money can be saved ,money they spend on defending proven criminals ......

No criminal will walk out because of juristic mistakes ,from now on the guy who makes these mistakes will get the punishment of the criminal he let go.

greetings

Solomon

You're so funny hahaha!  (You are being sarcastic surely?)

1 hour ago, Time Traveller said:

You are completely reading the Constitution wrong. The Constitution and the Amendments are Rights & Protections for citizens FROM THE GOVERNMENT.......It's not a protection from other citizens breaking the law. That is covered by the criminal code. That's why you don't see any mention in the constitution of things like Burglary or Murder. 

 

 

Thank you but I hold a Master's in history /education+. I think I will trust in my education.

3 hours ago, Somchai Logic said:

 

Just tried to watch this. I couldn't finish it.

What Planet is this Moron from.

If this is what he and his constituents truly believe to be a rational and logical argument. God Help America.

Up until I started watching this I foolishly believed there just might possibly be a 'reasonable' discussion tabled. Clearly, that is impossible if this is the NRA's mindset.

Never ever enter into a Battle of Wits with an unarmed opponent 

No US politician dare go against the NRA....least of all this guy.

 

 

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

 Statistically, there are over 8,000 home invasions per day in  North America 

http://www.lockjawsecurity.com/pdf/LockBumpingFactSheet.pdf

 

An estimated 3.7 million burglaries occurred each year on
average from 2003 to 2007.
*A household member was present in roughly 1 million burglaries
and became victims of violent crimes in 266,560 burglaries.

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vdhb.txt

My older brother suffered a home invasion last year.  He attacked one burglar with a baseball bat but a second overpowered him, took it from him and hit him in the head with it.  He survived.  Lucky my brother didn't have a gun.

2 hours ago, Becker said:

I am being silly?? How about answering the question; where do you draw the line regarding which weapons should be allowed for use by private citizens?

I'm calling you on that question. Go bait someone else. 

1 hour ago, rudi49jr said:

The US gun lobby would slam Jesus Christ himself, had he still been alive and dared to say one word about gun control.

 

 

LOL. He never ever said the Romans had no right to bear arms. 

What he did say was that if a Roman required him to carry the soldier's arms, to carry them another mile.

Jesus was not a liberal pacifist.

1 hour ago, Time Traveller said:

There were thinking of Foreign militias when they wrote that, Old Bull....but even still, 1 million is not really a lot, when you consider probably half of those servicepeople support the 2nd amendment rights of their fellow citizens ,.....And the American military did get their asses kicked in Afghanistan and Iraq.....both countries with much less people with guns. 

Given that recent track record, I would say those "nutters and freaks" would probably win

A lot more than half, IMO.

1 hour ago, lvr181 said:

So, the argument about the only way to stop an armed criminal/mentally unstable is with a gun, therefore justifying the gun lobby's right to bear arms. BUT you just said that is the job of the Police!

 

Seems that some members (if not all) of the gun lobby just use specious arguments to justify their stance?

 

And what have you physically done to stop the shootings of school kids? You folks have the armaments, do something to help your fellow citizens (the kids and their teachers)!

?????? What does the police force have to do with the right to self protection.

 

What are you on about? Individuals can't just go to schools with weapons regardless of their intentions.

What you are suggesting is vigilantism, which is illegal. 

I'm sure in a typical home invasion, you don't need hundreds or thousands of bullets and over 10 guns to protect yourself. No one is arguing you shouldn't be able to buy guns, we just need more stringent background checks, its common sense.

9 hours ago, MajarTheLion said:

Thank god for the NRA and American citizens who can walk upright. In a free country, there are various tuypes of savages. Some kill with cars. Some kill with knives. Some kill with blunt objects. Some kill with guns. The problem is the savages, not the inanimate object.

 

What a shame there are so many empty skulls who don't understand such basic concepts.

 

In this Florida shooting case, once again there were numerous warning signs government hacks ignored. Because of the deranged evil perpetrator and the incompetence of the government hacks who could have and should have done something, people died.

 

Does anyone really believe raising the rifle purchase age limit to 21 would have prevented this evil lunatic from doing what he did? If you believe that, I think it's time I tell you about some wonderful business opportunities you'll definitely want to invest in.

Sickening !

Most U.S. homes don't have guns in them.

Where is the consideration for the MAJORITY of Americans that are opposed to gun mania and want sensible gun control (including bans on assault weapons)?

 

http://www.paywallnews.com/life/Opinion-|-Why-is-only-one-side-in-the-gun-culture-war-required-to-show-respect-.Bk_v7coDM.html

Quote

 

...

What is odd is that those with extreme pro-gun views — those pushing for new laws to allow people to carry just about anytime, anywhere — are never called upon to model similar empathy toward children killed, the mourning parents left behind, people in urban neighborhoods suffering from violence, or the majority of Americans who don’t own guns.

Some firearm owners have posted images and videos on social media of their destroyed weapons following the school shooting in Florida on Feb. 14 that left 17 dead. (Elyse Samuels,Patrick Martin/The Washington Post)

Depending on the survey, somewhere between 58 percent and 68 percent of us live in households without guns. But no one who belongs to the National Rifle Association is ever told to prove their respect for our way of life.

 

1 minute ago, mike324 said:

I'm sure in a typical home invasion, you don't need hundreds or thousands of bullets and over 10 guns to protect yourself. No one is arguing you shouldn't be able to buy guns, we just need more stringent background checks, its common sense.

No argument from me on that. Age limit, compulsory training and passing the course, waiting period, personal gun licence issued by police after a thorough background check, limit on number of owned weapons without a special licence.

Sounds good to me.