RE: US Navy Shootings.

RE: US Navy Shootings. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

EdBowie -> RE: US Navy Shootings. (9/20/2013 4:42:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle <SNIP>. People who legitimately own guns for sporting or home protection reasons have no real reason to carry guns around all the time. The fact that they don't do so at the moment confirms this. So there's no reason why they should feel threatened by this approach to the problem. People who have assets that might make them a target for crime, like shop owners, jewelers, pharmacists, anyone who has to make large cash deposits, as well as rape/stalking victims may feel that their needs are just as legitimate as sporting use.

DesideriScuri -> RE: US Navy Shootings. (9/20/2013 5:04:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: OrionTheWolf A yes or no flag in a national database for the purpose of determining background checks gives no details. Your credit report invades your privacy more than it would. If it is kept at yes or no, and proceedings allowed to be brought before a judge in the case of exceptions, then I do not see where it would be much of an issue. The ones that would oppose are the ones that would oppose any law no matter how common sense because their cry is "if we allow this then eventually they will take all our guns", which I hear a lot around the Missouri area I am in living in now. If the yes or no flag in a national database were in place, and the background check tied into it, would it have averted this shooting or others? I am with Tweak on this and we need to find productive ways to make it safer. Ways that are not extreme, nor would cause a challenge with substance to the 2nd amendment. Most people are in favour of background checks, if these boards are anything to go by. However I believe an attempt to get background checks in place nationally after Sandy Hook failed in the Congress . So there's some work to be done to get this idea into law. Perhaps if the debate was framed in terms of keeping guns out of the public domain, rather than pro or anti gun control, some progress might be possible. People who legitimately own guns for sporting or home protection reasons have no real reason to carry guns around all the time. The fact that they don't do so at the moment confirms this. So there's no reason why they should feel threatened by this approach to the problem. Keeping guns out of the public domain isn't going to help. Two of the three guns used at the Navy Yard were allowed to be there. The shotgun used to kill the first guard wasn't allowed. The other two guns were taken from the guard(s). Unless you're talking about unarming the guards, guns weren't allowed in the general public domain. The Ft. Hood shooter brought his own firearms. He was in a no gun zone (outside of security personnel). Sandy Hook was a case where guns were brought in from outside a "general no gun zone" into a "general no gun zone," so that wouldn't help, either. Jared Loughner likely wouldn't have held back just because guns weren't allowed in public. James Holmes planned out what he was doing. Preventing people from carrying firearms in the movie theater wouldn't have done anything to prevent the Aurora, CO massacre. These people killed people. If they were willing to kill people, which is illegal here, what makes you think they'd have not killed simply because guns aren't allowed in public? Disarming the public tells a criminal that the only one with a gun is a criminal. The majority of people aren't criminals, so the vast majority won't have a gun. That makes the criminal's gun that much more potent of a motivator. Allowing the public to legally concealed carry means that criminals won't know who has a gun and who doesn't. Reduces the effectiveness, to a degree, of the gun as a motivational tool.

Nosathro -> RE: US Navy Shootings. (9/20/2013 8:01:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EdBowie quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle <SNIP>. People who legitimately own guns for sporting or home protection reasons have no real reason to carry guns around all the time. The fact that they don't do so at the moment confirms this. So there's no reason why they should feel threatened by this approach to the problem. People who have assets that might make them a target for crime, like shop owners, jewelers, pharmacists, anyone who has to make large cash deposits, as well as rape/stalking victims may feel that their needs are just as legitimate as sporting use. I had a friend, who owned a gun for the reasons you stated, carrying money, he is now doing 20 to life.

BamaD -> RE: US Navy Shootings. (9/20/2013 10:41:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro quote: ORIGINAL: EdBowie quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle <SNIP>. People who legitimately own guns for sporting or home protection reasons have no real reason to carry guns around all the time. The fact that they don't do so at the moment confirms this. So there's no reason why they should feel threatened by this approach to the problem. People who have assets that might make them a target for crime, like shop owners, jewelers, pharmacists, anyone who has to make large cash deposits, as well as rape/stalking victims may feel that their needs are just as legitimate as sporting use. I had a friend, who owned a gun for the reasons you stated, carrying money, he is now doing 20 to life. In the peoples republic of kalifornia?

BamaD -> RE: US Navy Shootings. (9/20/2013 10:47:28 AM)
Perhaps if the debate was framed in terms of keeping guns out of the public domain, rather than pro or anti gun control, some progress might be possible. People who legitimately own guns for sporting or home protection reasons have no real reason to carry guns around all the time. The fact that they don't do so at the moment confirms this. So there's no reason why they should feel threatened by this approach to the problem. I carry because I worked for the Sheriff's Office (in an administrative capacity) and my boss (law enforcement capacity) told me to. I carry any time I go out because I am not psychic and don't know which time I will need it. On a side Did they get a final count on the number of Australian hikers hacked up with machetes in New Guinea this week

Politesub53 -> RE: US Navy Shootings. (9/20/2013 11:48:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD On a side Did they get a final count on the number of Australian hikers hacked up with machetes in New Guinea this week Aiming this at Tweaks is new low, even for you..... Anyhow, no Australians were killed thanks to the bravery of the local guides, three of whom were killed.

Nosathro -> RE: US Navy Shootings. (9/20/2013 1:18:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterCaneman quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: MasterCaneman They (especially the Navy) are also very well-trained to operate fire-fighting equipment, and as such, they keep it located in convenient places around their work space. Why not their personal weapons as well? They're trained to fight, they need something to fight with. I'm no advocating each and every servicemember hump their PW everywhere they go (that's reserved for training and combat), just to make it easier for them to arm themselves in an emergency. And what would have kept the shooter from further arming himself in that scenario? He had already shot armed security personnel and taken their weapons. Numbers. There would be no way he could overwhelm several sections worth of armed people. One or two security guys I can see (I didn't hear if they were SPs or not-probably just Fed contractors themselves). And you can only shoot one at a time, so having more just means you got more crap to deal with. And while he's stopping to strip the bodies, that gives the personnel just that much more time to load out. There have been studies on people reaction to incidents such as mass shooting. In some, people were given guns (the guns were of various size matching guns on the market, they fired a pellet that had a dye that would show where it hit) The finding, 70% of the armed people were killed due to the fact they could not get the gun out of the holster. Those that did either the shots went wild into the walls and such or hit an innocent bystanders. Only about 2% actually hit the would-be shooter, no fatal, the shooter could continue to shoot. People of various occupations and lifestyle participated in the studies, including Police and Military, the result were always the same. Now allowing people to come to work with guns. The National Park Service now reports that since a law was passed to allow visitors to bring guns in, gun violence is up in our National Parks.

BamaD -> RE: US Navy Shootings. (9/20/2013 1:26:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD On a side Did they get a final count on the number of Australian hikers hacked up with machetes in New Guinea this week Aiming this at Tweaks is new low, even for you..... Anyhow, no Australians were killed thanks to the bravery of the local guides, three of whom were killed. Glad it was no worse.

BamaD -> RE: US Navy Shootings. (9/20/2013 1:51:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro quote: ORIGINAL: MasterCaneman quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: MasterCaneman They (especially the Navy) are also very well-trained to operate fire-fighting equipment, and as such, they keep it located in convenient places around their work space. Why not their personal weapons as well? They're trained to fight, they need something to fight with. I'm no advocating each and every servicemember hump their PW everywhere they go (that's reserved for training and combat), just to make it easier for them to arm themselves in an emergency. And what would have kept the shooter from further arming himself in that scenario? He had already shot armed security personnel and taken their weapons. Numbers. There would be no way he could overwhelm several sections worth of armed people. One or two security guys I can see (I didn't hear if they were SPs or not-probably just Fed contractors themselves). And you can only shoot one at a time, so having more just means you got more crap to deal with. And while he's stopping to strip the bodies, that gives the personnel just that much more time to load out. There have been studies on people reaction to incidents such as mass shooting. In some, people were given guns (the guns were of various size matching guns on the market, they fired a pellet that had a dye that would show where it hit) The finding, 70% of the armed people were killed due to the fact they could not get the gun out of the holster. Those that did either the shots went wild into the walls and such or hit an innocent bystanders. Only about 2% actually hit the would-be shooter, no fatal, the shooter could continue to shoot. People of various occupations and lifestyle participated in the studies, including Police and Military, the result were always the same. Now allowing people to come to work with guns. The National Park Service now reports that since a law was passed to allow visitors to bring guns in, gun violence is up in our National Parks. And there are studies that show exactly the opposite. In fact there is a study used by Newsweek last fall that indicates that armed citizens are MORE effective than police. The examples you give show that they were done with inexperience people and unfamiliar equipment.

thompsonx -> RE: US Navy Shootings. (9/20/2013 3:59:33 PM)
quote: I had a friend, who owned a gun for the reasons you stated, carrying money, he is now doing 20 to life. quote: In the peoples republic of kalifornia? Nope...here you only get 8 years.

thompsonx -> RE: US Navy Shootings. (9/20/2013 4:05:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 How far is the IRS from the Navy Yard? This guy WAS crazy. Maybe he was sane just lost and was looking for an irs office to shoot up[;)]

Nosathro -> RE: US Navy Shootings. (9/21/2013 12:02:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro quote: ORIGINAL: MasterCaneman quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: MasterCaneman They (especially the Navy) are also very well-trained to operate fire-fighting equipment, and as such, they keep it located in convenient places around their work space. Why not their personal weapons as well? They're trained to fight, they need something to fight with. I'm no advocating each and every servicemember hump their PW everywhere they go (that's reserved for training and combat), just to make it easier for them to arm themselves in an emergency. And what would have kept the shooter from further arming himself in that scenario? He had already shot armed security personnel and taken their weapons. Numbers. There would be no way he could overwhelm several sections worth of armed people. One or two security guys I can see (I didn't hear if they were SPs or not-probably just Fed contractors themselves). And you can only shoot one at a time, so having more just means you got more crap to deal with. And while he's stopping to strip the bodies, that gives the personnel just that much more time to load out. There have been studies on people reaction to incidents such as mass shooting. In some, people were given guns (the guns were of various size matching guns on the market, they fired a pellet that had a dye that would show where it hit) The finding, 70% of the armed people were killed due to the fact they could not get the gun out of the holster. Those that did either the shots went wild into the walls and such or hit an innocent bystanders. Only about 2% actually hit the would-be shooter, no fatal, the shooter could continue to shoot. People of various occupations and lifestyle participated in the studies, including Police and Military, the result were always the same. Now allowing people to come to work with guns. The National Park Service now reports that since a law was passed to allow visitors to bring guns in, gun violence is up in our National Parks. And there are studies that show exactly the opposite. In fact there is a study used by Newsweek last fall that indicates that armed citizens are MORE effective than police. The examples you give show that they were done with inexperience people and unfamiliar equipment. You should read that part " including Police and Military, the result were always the same." As to Newsweek, the study was unscientific were as the ones I used were.

BamaD -> RE: US Navy Shootings. (9/21/2013 2:31:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro quote: ORIGINAL: MasterCaneman quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: MasterCaneman They (especially the Navy) are also very well-trained to operate fire-fighting equipment, and as such, they keep it located in convenient places around their work space. Why not their personal weapons as well? They're trained to fight, they need something to fight with. I'm no advocating each and every servicemember hump their PW everywhere they go (that's reserved for training and combat), just to make it easier for them to arm themselves in an emergency. And what would have kept the shooter from further arming himself in that scenario? He had already shot armed security personnel and taken their weapons. Numbers. There would be no way he could overwhelm several sections worth of armed people. One or two security guys I can see (I didn't hear if they were SPs or not-probably just Fed contractors themselves). And you can only shoot one at a time, so having more just means you got more crap to deal with. And while he's stopping to strip the bodies, that gives the personnel just that much more time to load out. There have been studies on people reaction to incidents such as mass shooting. In some, people were given guns (the guns were of various size matching guns on the market, they fired a pellet that had a dye that would show where it hit) The finding, 70% of the armed people were killed due to the fact they could not get the gun out of the holster. Those that did either the shots went wild into the walls and such or hit an innocent bystanders. Only about 2% actually hit the would-be shooter, no fatal, the shooter could continue to shoot. People of various occupations and lifestyle participated in the studies, including Police and Military, the result were always the same. Now allowing people to come to work with guns. The National Park Service now reports that since a law was passed to allow visitors to bring guns in, gun violence is up in our National Parks. And there are studies that show exactly the opposite. In fact there is a study used by Newsweek last fall that indicates that armed citizens are MORE effective than police. The examples you give show that they were done with inexperience people and unfamiliar equipment. You should read that part " including Police and Military, the result were always the same." As to Newsweek, the study was unscientific were as the ones I used were. A study by two men with PHDs in criminology with favorable peer review was unscientific? Dream on. Your study on the other hand clearly determined the outcome then did the survey to prove it.

Politesub53 -> RE: US Navy Shootings. (9/22/2013 4:16:20 PM)
President Obama gets it spot on. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24199497

BamaD -> RE: US Navy Shootings. (9/22/2013 5:12:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro quote: ORIGINAL: EdBowie quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle <SNIP>. People who legitimately own guns for sporting or home protection reasons have no real reason to carry guns around all the time. The fact that they don't do so at the moment confirms this. So there's no reason why they should feel threatened by this approach to the problem. People who have assets that might make them a target for crime, like shop owners, jewelers, pharmacists, anyone who has to make large cash deposits, as well as rape/stalking victims may feel that their needs are just as legitimate as sporting use. I had a friend, who owned a gun for the reasons you stated, carrying money, he is now doing 20 to life. For defending himself?

Nosathro -> RE: US Navy Shootings. (9/22/2013 7:14:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro quote: ORIGINAL: EdBowie quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle <SNIP>. People who legitimately own guns for sporting or home protection reasons have no real reason to carry guns around all the time. The fact that they don't do so at the moment confirms this. So there's no reason why they should feel threatened by this approach to the problem. People who have assets that might make them a target for crime, like shop owners, jewelers, pharmacists, anyone who has to make large cash deposits, as well as rape/stalking victims may feel that their needs are just as legitimate as sporting use. I had a friend, who owned a gun for the reasons you stated, carrying money, he is now doing 20 to life. For defending himself? He was not being attacked.

BamaD -> RE: US Navy Shootings. (9/22/2013 7:48:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro quote: ORIGINAL: EdBowie quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle <SNIP>. People who legitimately own guns for sporting or home protection reasons have no real reason to carry guns around all the time. The fact that they don't do so at the moment confirms this. So there's no reason why they should feel threatened by this approach to the problem. People who have assets that might make them a target for crime, like shop owners, jewelers, pharmacists, anyone who has to make large cash deposits, as well as rape/stalking victims may feel that their needs are just as legitimate as sporting use. I had a friend, who owned a gun for the reasons you stated, carrying money, he is now doing 20 to life. For defending himself? He was not being attacked. Then why did you make it look like he was?

EdBowie -> RE: US Navy Shootings. (9/22/2013 10:29:57 PM)
People can be convicted for the way they use guns in or out of their homes, the question was whether the location of the anticipated gun use mitigated anything. quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro I had a friend, who owned a gun for the reasons you stated, carrying money, he is now doing 20 to life.

Page: << < prev 7 8 9 10 [11]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625