'Good guys with guns' hinder police

[Yes_Minister]

more BS-you claim that if we reject stupid laws that are intended to harass honest gun owners we somehow are acting irresponsibly. I don't have any duty to maintain my rights by suggesting solutions to problems that really cannot be solved with simple laws. And when someone posts idiocy such as claiming we care more about guns then human lives, I realize you have no interest in actually doing anything other than bashing those of us who vote in favor of our rights

Except I have seen people say "sorry, your dead kids don't trump my gun rights", I think at that point I have right to ask callous people in the gun rights movement are.

Joe The Plumber: 'Your Dead Kids Don't Trump My Constitutional Rights' To Have Guns

If you can't bothered to even try to come with a solution to a devastating problem like mass shootings , then I find your moral outrage about your gun rights without merit. I think your movement has no real solution to that problem and frankly I am of the belief that politics is about finding solutions to problems, rather then just shrugging in the face of a real problem that takes human lives.

Believe what you want, but again, what is going to stop the next mass shooting and the one after that and the one after that? It seems like doing what we are doing is not doing anything to prevent these massacres and frankly doing the same things, over and over again, expecting different results, is madness.

 

[zsu2357]

=Yes_Minister;1067819464]It seems like the gun advocates seem to have very little in terms of ideas of keeping guns out of the hands of mass shooters, which might do more to prevent mass shootings. Republicans blame this latest shooting on mental illness, what are they suggesting in terms of keeping the mentally ill from getting guns or improving the mental health system?

You can add 20,000 more gun laws and all the restrictions in the world and if a nutcase wants to do a mass shooting he will. Or use bombs or trucks or both.

Again, other Western countries have fewer mass shootings and gun violence in general, why is that?

Other Western countries had a better idea:roll:...It's called confiscation. And that won't work here like England or Australia.
And how is the good guy with a gun as a way to stop mass shootings theory still valid after every hole I poked in it?[/QUOTE]

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Oh boo hoo. The detectives had to watch more video *after* the incident. It's their job to investigate.

The real point here is that, altho there were several other Americans legally carrying firearms, none of them got involved inappropriately in the incident. There was no 'shoot out at the OK Corral' as anti-gun people claim is a foregone conclusion.

Yeah I'm sure the detective who will probably make overtime on the case and who's PERS pension is determined by hours worked will really be disadvantaged here...

 

[TurtleDude]

Except I have seen people say "sorry, your dead kids don't trump my gun rights", I think at that point I have right to ask callous people in the gun rights movement are.

Joe The Plumber: 'Your Dead Kids Don't Trump My Constitutional Rights' To Have Guns

If you can't bothered to even try to come with a solution to a devastating problem like mass shootings , then I find your moral outrage about your gun rights without merit. I think your movement has no real solution to that problem and frankly I am of the belief that politics is about finding solutions to problems, rather then just shrugging in the face of a real problem that takes human lives.

Believe what you want, but again, what is going to stop the next mass shooting and the one after that and the one after that? It seems like doing what we are doing is not doing anything to prevent these massacres and frankly doing the same things, over and over again, expecting different results, is madness.

he's correct if a bit blunt. why should honest people give up their rights based on what a scum bag POS criminal does. we don't tell drinkers to abstain because a guy in Kentucky burned up a couple dozen kids when he ran into their school bus with a BAC of twice drunk.

 

[Lursa]

Except again, Republicans keep saying this a mental health issue, not a gun control issue, so if this guy was not mentally ill, then what is the issue?

Why do perfectly healthy people get cancer?

WHy do people die in head on crashes?

There are no guarantees in life, FOR life.

When you look at the actual numbers of these tragic mass shooting events, they pale beside the day to day tragedies that every family befalls. They are just shocking, horrifying, and played over and over in the media.

You cant protect everyone from everything. And yet, you would like to disarm the law-abiding to make us more vulnerable, more at a disadvantage, to achieve an impossible goal.

"Freedom doesn't mean safe, it means free."

You cant protect everyone but MANY people and schools, etc can be MORE responsible for themselves and guns are not the only answer to that.

 

[Yes_Minister]

You can add 20,000 more gun laws and all the restrictions in the world and if a nutcase wants to do a mass shooting he will. Or use bombs or trucks or both.

So when the next mass shooting happens should people just shrug their shoulders? Imagine if someone suggested such an attitude about terrorism, people would flip their wigs. Murders still happen despite laws against murder, do we make murder legal because it has not prevented all murders?

Other Western countries had a better idea:roll:...It's called confiscation. And that won't work here like England or Australia.
And how is the good guy with a gun as a way to stop mass shootings theory still valid after every hole I poked in it?

[/QUOTE]

Okay, what about the Swiss, they have fair amount guns, with fewer mass shootings, what's up with that?

Does Canada have gun confiscation? If so, when did that happen?

 

[Yes_Minister]

he's correct if a bit blunt. why should honest people give up their rights based on what a scum bag POS criminal does. we don't tell drinkers to abstain because a guy in Kentucky burned up a couple dozen kids when he ran into their school bus with a BAC of twice drunk.

Except people would think he is callous and think he cares more about guns then human lives.

Also would say we should repeal laws on drunk driving because that guy in Kentucky got away with that?

I think there is a balance between individual freedom and the public good that is generally a good thing to strike and I have not seen any good argument on why being able to shoot automatic weapons at a range is worth the lives of the children of Sandy Hook and you can say that gun control laws would not have prevented that and I would say fine, what's your solution and you will just stone wall. If you can't be bothered to propose anything to this problem, frankly I find your ideology lacks moral or intellectual authority.

 

[TurtleDude]

Except people would think he is callous and think he cares more about guns then human lives.

Also would say we should repeal laws on drunk driving because that guy in Kentucky got away with that?

I think there is a balance between individual freedom and the public good that is generally a good thing to strike and I have not seen any good argument on why being able to shoot automatic weapons at a range is worth the lives of the children of Sandy Hook and you can say that gun control laws would not have prevented that and I would say fine, what's your solution and you will just stone wall. If you can't be bothered to propose anything to this problem, frankly I find your ideology lacks moral or intellectual authority.

drunk driving is an act of misusing cars and booze in such a way that the actions cause an extreme increase in the probability of harming others. No one claims that someone who is drunk and using a firearm should be immune to prosecution. Your analogy sucks.

YOU also demonstrate you really are ignorant about these facts, Automatic weapons were not used at ANY of the mass shootings you complain about. saying the lives of the children at Sandy Hook died because I can shoot automatic weapons at the range damns your stupid argument to the wall of shame of really idiotic comments

 

[Yes_Minister]

Why do perfectly healthy people get cancer?

WHy do people die in head on crashes?

There are no guarantees in life, FOR life.

When you look at the actual numbers of these tragic mass shooting events, they pale beside the day to day tragedies that every family befalls. They are just shocking, horrifying, and played over and over in the media.

You cant protect everyone from everything. And yet, you would like to disarm the law-abiding to make us more vulnerable, more at a disadvantage, to achieve an impossible goal.

"Freedom doesn't mean safe, it means free."

You cant protect everyone but MANY people and schools, etc can be MORE responsible for themselves and guns are not the only answer to that.

Why are there traffic laws then? Why are there laws about terrorism? We don't just say, "yeah, whatever" in terms of those things, so why are these mass shootings met with a shrug? You can't protect everyone from everything, but you can try though, otherwise what is the point of a society? Should murder be made legal, just because murders still happen despite laws against it?

 

[Bum]

drunk driving is an act of misusing cars and booze in such a way that the actions cause an extreme increase in the probability of harming others. No one claims that someone who is drunk and using a firearm should be immune to prosecution. Your analogy sucks.

YOU also demonstrate you really are ignorant about these facts, Automatic weapons were not used at ANY of the mass shootings you complain about. saying the lives of the children at Sandy Hook died because I can shoot automatic weapons at the range damns your stupid argument to the wall of shame of really idiotic comments

Played the hyperbole card, did he?

 

[Lursa]

Why are there traffic laws then? Why are there laws about terrorism? We don't just say, "yeah, whatever" in terms of those things, so why are these mass shootings met with a shrug? You can't protect everyone from everything, but you can try though, otherwise what is the point of a society? Should murder be made legal, just because murders still happen despite laws against it?

Now you are just getting dramatic. I never implied that laws for those things had no value.

You seem to need more coddling and guarantees than are realistic, certainly in a free nation.

 

[TurtleDude]

Played the hyperbole card, did he?

its a stupid argument that if I do something legally, i am responsible for someone who violates numerous laws. Using his idiotic analogy, anyone who drinks or owns a car is responsible for say that guy in KY who killed over 20 kids when he caused their bus to explode into flames because he was drunk. It like saying anyone who has a computer is responsible for people who use the internet to purvey or spread kiddie porn.

this idiotic guilt by association proves that these anti gun people aren't really concerned about the crime but rather hate gun owners.

 

[Yes_Minister]

drunk driving is an act of misusing cars and booze in such a way that the actions cause an extreme increase in the probability of harming others. No one claims that someone who is drunk and using a firearm should be immune to prosecution. Your analogy sucks.

YOU also demonstrate you really are ignorant about these facts, Automatic weapons were not used at ANY of the mass shootings you complain about. saying the lives of the children at Sandy Hook died because I can shoot automatic weapons at the range damns your stupid argument to the wall of shame of really idiotic comments

The bump stock made the gun in the Vegas shooting in a defacto automatic weapon. You are splitting hairs.

You are no position to call anyone shameful, when your solution to these mass shootings is to shrug and agree with the guy who says his gun rights should trump dead children.

I was making a broad analogy rather then referring to you in particular, in regards to automatic weapons. I am saying if your side is going to say your gun rights trump those dead children, then why should take your moral outrage seriously? Why should I care about it? Again, if you had a solution that keep the same gun rights and stop the mass shootings, I would listen, you have presented nothing, which makes me think this issue is not taken seriously, if you take this issue seriously then prove it. Otherwise I think you are being callous in regards to those killed by these mass shootings.

If you think you have no obligation to even attempt an solution, then I have no obligation to think you are serious about this issue.

 

[cuban smokes]

LE = lazy is as lazy does ................... you're welcome ................

 

[zsu2357]

=Yes_Minister;1067819464]It seems like the gun advocates seem to have very little in terms of ideas of keeping guns out of the hands of mass shooters, which might do more to prevent mass shootings. Republicans blame this latest shooting on mental illness, what are they suggesting in terms of keeping the mentally ill from getting guns or improving the mental health system?

You can add 20,000 more gun laws and all the restrictions in the world and if a nutcase wants to do a mass shooting he will. Or use bombs or trucks or both.

Again, other Western countries have fewer mass shootings and gun violence in general, why is that?

Other Western countries had a better idea:roll:...It's called confiscation. And that won't work here like England or Australia.

And how is the good guy with a gun as a way to stop mass shootings theory still valid after every hole I poked in it?

OK lets what if it.
What if there had been a good guy with a gun at Sandy Hook?
What if there had been a good guy with a gun at The Aurora theater?
What if there had been a good guy with a gun at Columbine?
The what if list is endless.

 

[TurtleDude]

The bump stock made the gun in the Vegas shooting in a defacto automatic weapon. You are splitting hairs.

You are no position to call anyone shameful, when your solution to these mass shootings is to shrug and agree with the guy who says his gun rights should trump dead children.

I was making a broad analogy rather then referring to you in particular, in regards to automatic weapons. I am saying if your side is going to say your gun rights trump those dead children, then why should take your moral outrage seriously? Why should I care about it? Again, if you had a solution that keep the same gun rights and stop the mass shootings, I would listen, you have presented nothing, which makes me think this issue is not taken seriously, if you take this issue seriously then prove it. Otherwise I think you are being callous in regards to those killed by these mass shootings.

you try to cover for both a profound amount of ignorance and a faux concern by claiming "you care more than we do". I don't buy it. Your goal is clearly to express your distaste with the politics of avid gun owners. You are most likely upset that people like me, and other NRA members, prevented the election from turning out the way you wanted it to. So you try to shame us by pretending we don't care enough and we aren't willing to piss our rights away every time some asshole with a insane hatred kills others.

and your moronic claim that our rights are the reason why some asshole kills others is just so blatantly dishonest, that I cannot take anything you say as anything other than hateful lies

 

[cuban smokes]

I think we should take the guns away from LE, see how that works, for a while ............

 

[vegas giants]

Now you are just getting dramatic. I never implied that laws for those things had no value.

You seem to need more coddling and guarantees than are realistic, certainly in a free nation.

You certainly did imply that if you support those laws you hate freedom....when you really want safety

 

[zsu2357]

That would be optimal, but the good guy with a gun may not be able to do anything, if he gets shot while watching a movie or a concert. Again, its totally luck based whether the good guy with a gun can make any sort of difference.

Then does that mean that everyone shot that day was a lucky shot made by the shooter?

 

[Yes_Minister]

you try to cover for both a profound amount of ignorance and a faux concern by claiming "you care more than we do". I don't buy it. Your goal is clearly to express your distaste with the politics of avid gun owners. You are most likely upset that people like me, and other NRA members, prevented the election from turning out the way you wanted it to. So you try to shame us by pretending we don't care enough and we aren't willing to piss our rights away every time some asshole with a insane hatred kills others.

and your moronic claim that our rights are the reason why some asshole kills others is just so blatantly dishonest, that I cannot take anything you say as anything other than hateful lies

Believe what you wish, I don't care at this point and frankly I don't care about your moral outrage to me at this point.

Your confusion of blind ideology with some sort of universal wisdom is patable. I think this good guy with a gun as a grand solution to mass shootings and ignoring why that often doesn't work, seems to fit in the blind group think NRA ideology being promoted here. I find it ironic that people who claim to be individuals put so much of their identity into organizations that promote group think, like the NRA. Do as you will, I can't stop you and at this point, I don't care.

Fine, don't change anything and see what happens, bet there will be another mass shooting soon enough and conservatives will hem and haw about mental health, nothing will actually change and we will see this, over and over again. Because doing the same things over and over again and expecting different results, is madness.

Anyway, good night sir.

 

[Yes_Minister]

Then does that mean that everyone shot that day was a lucky shot made by the shooter?

The shooter had a plan and the element of surprise, a CCW on the scene has neither of those.

 

[zsu2357]

Except the NRA spins this as a valid strategy to deal with mass shootings, but we all know its success comes down to chance.

Is it better than no chance at all? I don't do no chances at all.

 

[Yes_Minister]

Is it better than no chance at all? I don't do no chances at all.

Its a security blanket, unless everything goes to chance, it won't mean thing.

 

[TurtleDude]

Believe what you wish, I don't care at this point and frankly I don't care about your moral outrage to me at this point.

Your confusion of blind ideology with some sort of universal wisdom is patable. I think this good guy with a gun as a grand solution to mass shootings and ignoring why that often doesn't work, seems to fit in the blind group think NRA ideology being promoted here. I find it ironic that people who claim to be individuals put so much of their identity into organizations that promote group think, like the NRA. Do as you will, I can't stop you and at this point, I don't care.

Fine, don't change anything and see what happens, bet there will be another mass shooting soon enough and conservatives will hem and haw about mental health, nothing will actually change and we will see this, over and over again. Because doing the same things over and over again and expecting different results, is madness.

Anyway, good night sir.

suggestion-if you want to discuss gun issues with people who are experts, you don't have to become an expert but at least you should have some clue about the issues.

 

[TurtleDude]

Is it better than no chance at all? I don't do no chances at all.

I am sure he is an expert on gun fighting and the use of guns in self defense.