• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free. It's easy to join!

NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

Part of the problem is the far right crying for loosening gun laws and allowing guns everywhere with no regulation. That would be like lowering the age for driving. All you get is more accidents with very little benefit. The wild west was called that partly because people had guns and had no issue using them.
 
The New York Times (I know the liberal media) has a rolling headline in their website today.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/u...killed-by-a-falling-object-as-a-gun.html?_r=0



Gun Homicides in ______________ are about as common as deaths from ___________ in the United States.

Spain / excessive heat
Poland / bicycles riders
Norway / accidental strangulation by hanging
Canada / alcohol poisoning
Germany / falling objects (answer is 680)
New Zealand / falling off ladder
Iceland / electrocution
Japan / struck by lightening
Netherlands / accidental gas poisoning
England / agricultural machinery accidents
Scotland / cataclysmic storms


dvd made a great point that we have had more mass shootings in the USA (355) this year than days in the year (today is day 338)
 
dvdneal said:
Part of the problem is the far right crying for loosening gun laws and allowing guns everywhere with no regulation. That would be like lowering the age for driving. All you get is more accidents with very little benefit. The wild west was called that partly because people had guns and had no issue using them.
Click to expand...

You are 100% correct. The answer is not less gun laws, but different and balanced gun laws. More gun laws blanket gun laws will not help.

I think the shooting in SB is a different situation though. I don't think increased gun laws would have made an ounce of difference.

Planit said:
The New York Times (I know the liberal media) has a rolling headline in their website today.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/u...killed-by-a-falling-object-as-a-gun.html?_r=0



Gun Homicides in ______________ are about as common as deaths from ___________ in the United States.

Spain / excessive heat
Poland / bicycles riders
Norway / accidental strangulation by hanging
Canada / alcohol poisoning
Germany / falling objects (answer is 680)
New Zealand / falling off ladder
Iceland / electrocution
Japan / struck by lightening
Netherlands / accidental gas poisoning
England / agricultural machinery accidents
Scotland / cataclysmic storms


dvd made a great point that we have had more mass shootings in the USA (355) this year than days in the year (today is day 338)
Click to expand...

It is an interesting article and they are not off base. But I wonder what it would be in terms of gun homicides committed by people with legally purchased guns in locations that are not gun free. I also would be interested to know if they included justified shootings such as the police killing the two assailants in SB.

Overall, I think there is a cultural issue here in the United States, part of it is mentally unstable people getting their hands on guns, and the other part is criminals getting guns illegally.
 
Planit said:
dvd made a great point that we have had more mass shootings in the USA (355) this year than days in the year (today is day 338)
Click to expand...

The issue is so politicized you can't put much stock in statistics from either side. The above is crowd sourced data with a wonky definition of what a "mass shooting" is, in this case four or more including the shooter. Lots of gang stuff ends up included. the number is much less where innocent people are shot. Both side are so desperate to scare people that none of the data can be taken at face value. A good example is the widely publicized school shooting data. One case was in the town where my mother lives, and that case was a guy who shot himself on school property in the middle of the night during scheduled school break. Not really a "school shooting".

That being said doing nothing is irresponsible. 80% of folks agree with enhanced background checks and closing loopholes, how about we start there.
 
giff57 said:
That being said doing nothing is irresponsible. 80% of folks agree with enhanced background checks and closing loopholes, how about we start there.
Click to expand...

With today's technology, it is stupid easy to do something like this. In most situations a person could walk into a gun shop, and within an hour leave with the gun. It would be even quicker if they had a conceal carry license because the background check would have already been completed.
 
The real problem......

At some point maybe people will wake up and decide they are tired of making the "man" so rich and demand a fair piece of the freedom pie:
vkNo7qv.png
 
michaelskis said:
Does anyone actually know someone who is openly willing to say that they will vote for Trump?
Click to expand...

At least 30% of the republican electorate. It is embarrassing. I would like to think his rhetoric has doomed him, but it should have a long time ago. I think he just wants a reason to run 3rd party and give it to Hilary. ;)
 
michaelskis said:
Does anyone actually know someone who is openly willing to say that they will vote for Trump?
Click to expand...

I had this conversation a couple of months ago in another forum with an uber-lefty who (unfortunately for him) has Rush Limbaugh-worshiping parents and a bunch of wacky facebook friends:


Dude: Trump supporters everywhere, lunatics, blah, blah, blah...

Me: I don't know anyone who would vote for Trump.

Dude: Liar - they're everywhere, all I hear is people who love Trump.

Me: No, I really don't know anyone who would vote for Trump. My conservative coworkers and friends are uniformly waiting for him to drop out, the majority of my family leans to the left, and I'm not on social media.

Dude: Stop denying these people exist!

Me: Huh? I'm not denying anything - I've seen the poll numbers, and apparently 119 out of 397 likely GOP voters favor Trump right now. All I'm saying is that I'm not exposed to any of those folks in real life.

Dude: STOP DENYING THESE PEOPLE EXIST!!1!

Me: Okey-dokey - we're done here.
 
Here in my world of overly right wing people I hear people that like The Trump. That and Carson, mostly Carson though. The Trump defense is usually something like, "He speaks his mind." or "the truth" or "what everyone knows, but none of the others are saying." So yes, the local crazies believe Islam is the root of all evil and anything other than slightly tanned skin must be ethnic and therefore wrong.
 
michaelskis said:
Does anyone actually know someone who is openly willing to say that they will vote for Trump?
Click to expand...

Yes, my own grandfather. For reasons like "the terrorists won't get away with anything if he's president," "he won't let illegals into the country" and "he's not a wimp like the black guy [Obama]." Luckily he almost never talks about politics. While I love my grandpa, he's not what most people would call an "enlightened" individual in 2015.

To get some of the Tough Guy vote the Democrats should enlist some liberal bodybuilder/soldier/biker type to angrily shout progressive policies and denounce conservatives as sissies.
 
Seabishop said:
To get some of the Tough Guy vote the Democrats should enlist some liberal bodybuilder/soldier/biker type to angrily shout progressive policies and denounce conservatives as sissies.
Click to expand...

THE GUBMINTS TRYING TO TAKE AWAY YOUR RIGHT FOR SOCIALIZED MEDICINE AND PUT YOU AT RISK BY NOT PUTTING BETTER CONTROLS ON GUN PURCHASES!!! YOU NEED TO GET OFF YOUR ASS AND VOTE FOR THIS DEMOCRAT.

chuck-norris-trigger-the-vote.jpg
 
Part of me whats to believe Trump is out there having some kind of game or having fun messing with the media and general public. Is he just saying the most outlandish stupid things just to get reaction knowing full well its not going to happen?
 
dvdneal said:
Here in my world of overly right wing people I hear people that like The Trump. That and Carson, mostly Carson though. The Trump defense is usually something like, "He speaks his mind." or "the truth" or "what everyone knows, but none of the others are saying." So yes, the local crazies believe Islam is the root of all evil and anything other than slightly tanned skin must be ethnic and therefore wrong.
Click to expand...

No No No... Hillary and OSU are the root of all evil. :not::lmao:;)
 
michaelskis said:
No No No... Hillary and OSU are the root of all evil. :not::lmao:;)
Click to expand...

Down here Hillary is evil for being a woman and a democrat. That's just two strikes against her to start with, but we're still blaming the current guy for everything.

Also, OSU would be Oklahoma State and yes they are considered evil. Not KU evil, but still bad.
 
So do you think that the federal reserve (still not a division or committee of the government) will raise the interest rates next week? If they raise it, what impacts do you think it will have on the economy?
 
michaelskis said:
So do you think that the federal reserve (still not a division or committee of the government) will raise the interest rates next week? If they raise it, what impacts do you think it will have on the economy?
Click to expand...

Yes and minor. It will be a quarter point...stock markets have already priced it in and yields in the bond markets have already increased in expectation of the move. Money is still cheap and inflation is still low.

With the global slow down starting in earnest I think the fed will need the ability to impact monetary policy in 2017 and are "loading arrows in the quiver." Assuming no major shock to the US or global economy they will raise rates in 2016 by 50 basis points... probably in the summer and winter meetings. They will want to see how the economy reacts to the point increase.
 
I like the way that Tom Brokaw explains history as it relates to Trump's comments. Too much truth for people to deny.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPuyktN9nF8
 
Seabishop said:
To get some of the Tough Guy vote the Democrats should enlist some liberal bodybuilder/soldier/biker type to angrily shout progressive policies and denounce conservatives as sissies.
Click to expand...

Found him. Braddock, PA Mayor and current U.S. Senate candidate John Fetterman. (I don't really know if he sounds angry but he looks the part.)

fetterman.jpg


Moderator note:

fixed the image link.
 
dvdneal said:
Part of the problem is the far right crying for loosening gun laws and allowing guns everywhere with no regulation. That would be like lowering the age for driving. All you get is more accidents with very little benefit. The wild west was called that partly because people had guns and had no issue using them.
Click to expand...

One of the first ordinances frontier towns often passed was a law restricting the carrying of firearms in the city limits. Men were required to either check their guns at the town marshal or county sheriff's office, or check their guns at the hotels or saloons. Town fathers recognized that young men with access to valley tan whiskey and firearms was a formula for disaster.

The Gunfight at the OK Corral was precipitated partly by Town Marshal Virgil Earp enforcing the no carrying firearms in town ordinance in Tombstone. He deputized brothers Wyatt and Morgan and Doc Holliday and went down the street to disarm the McLaurys and Clantons. Ike Clanton had made threats the night before that he would kill Wyatt Earp. Was enforcement of the ordinance a pretense to do away with dangerous enemies? Possibly so. When the shooting started Ike Clanton ran off, leaving his brother Billy and the McLaurys to face the Earps and Holliday in the most famous gunfight of the Old West.

Even in the New West I've encountered men and women armed for no apparent reason. During a river recreation survey I was doing for Montana FWP I interviewed this guy, and didn't notice right away that he had a .45 semi-automatic on each hip and he was pissed that the Forest Service had evicted him from land he was squatting on. AWKWARD!
 
JNA said:
If you were in England, would you have signed that petition ?
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-35052505
Click to expand...

No... Only because I think it is a waste of Government resources to actually ban someone like Trump from a particular location. In England, laws are different but I don't see him being a security threat as much as a very loud annoyance.

However, I do worry about the US society supporting this jerk. I do not think he should even be in the top 20 candidates. He is using his stupid comments to allow the media to do his campaigning for him. Part of it is just getting your name out there, and despite his hate speech, he has been successful at making sure that he gets the media's attention.

I dislike Tump almost as much as I dislike Hillary. I will not vote for either of them.
 
Hink said:
Good guy with a gun is a very poor policy idea... and in general probably very deadly... for the good guy. Good on the Daily Show for making light of such a silly concept.

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2015/12/11/9891664/daily-show-mass-shootings
Click to expand...

I find it interesting that there are now several heads of law enforcements (not some night show entertainer), recommends that more people conceal carry. This is including a democrat sheriff in New York, the sheriff in Detroit and the sherrif in Millwakee. These are guys who see this stuff on a day to day basis in real life, some some theoretical lab rat type experiment. The experience by someone from the daily show is a joke and I am surprised you would even post it.

To top it off, there are studies both ways and it is all how you work the numbers. Take this one in WI for example.

Finally, how do you explain how the overwhelming majority of mass shootings deaths occur in gun free zones? The Aurora Co shooter went past several movie theaters that permitted guns to get to one that didn't. Why? It is one thing to say that good guys are unarmed but show me a valid idea to keep bad guys from bringing guns into those places. Heck, in CA with their gun laws, bad people got their hands on guns illegally and legally and went into a gun free zone.
 
michaelskis said:
I find it interesting that there are now several heads of law enforcements (not some night show entertainer), recommends that more people conceal carry. This is including a democrat sheriff in New York, the sheriff in Detroit and the sherrif in Millwakee. These are guys who see this stuff on a day to day basis in real life, some some theoretical lab rat type experiment. The experience by someone from the daily show is a joke and I am surprised you would even post it.

To top it off, there are studies both ways and it is all how you work the numbers. Take this one in WI for example.

Finally, how do you explain how the overwhelming majority of mass shootings deaths occur in gun free zones? The Aurora Co shooter went past several movie theaters that permitted guns to get to one that didn't. Why? It is one thing to say that good guys are unarmed but show me a valid idea to keep bad guys from bringing guns into those places. Heck, in CA with their gun laws, bad people got their hands on guns illegally and legally and went into a gun free zone.
Click to expand...

I would guess I could find just as many law enforcement officers / military / etc. who don't support having people with guns. I certainly can find lots of articles that support it.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...good-guy-gun-concealed-carry-column/77108230/
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/oregon-shooting-gun-laws-213222
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/1...ng-good-guy-with-a-gun-myth-once-and-for-all/
http://www.thenation.com/article/combat-vets-destroy-the-nras-heroic-gunslinger-fantasy/

"an FBI analysis of 185 mass shootings over the past thirteen years found that a grand total of one was stopped by an armed civilian"
https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/20...r-incidents-in-the-u.s.-between-2000-and-2013

Look I don't argue we could use more trained police officers in the United States. That would probably help this situation more than anything. But that concept goes against the argument for why we need to arm citizens. Government power, or something. The idea that a guy with 4 hours of training is a good thing in a scary, potentially deadly situation, is a good thing, is just crazy. The kind of crazy it seems we support in this country. The idea that we defend with the 2nd Amendment. Clearly that wasn't the intention.

I think our country in general is smarter than that. I hope we see some changes for the better, before horrible ideas like arming civilians or putting more guns in the hands of people who have no good reason to have them day to day gets approved. Concealed carry is scary, but this goes beyond that. If you just like to hunt, why would you need a gun on your hip in a 7/11? Or at school? Or in a library? My guess... so you can shoot someone. Oh excuse me, "protection" from the inevitable government takeover. :r:
 
michaelskis said:
I find it interesting that there are now several heads of law enforcements (not some night show entertainer), recommends that more people conceal carry. This is including a democrat sheriff in New York, the sheriff in Detroit and the sherrif in Millwakee. These are guys who see this stuff on a day to day basis in real life, some some theoretical lab rat type experiment. The experience by someone from the daily show is a joke and I am surprised you would even post it.

To top it off, there are studies both ways and it is all how you work the numbers. Take this one in WI for example.

Finally, how do you explain how the overwhelming majority of mass shootings deaths occur in gun free zones? The Aurora Co shooter went past several movie theaters that permitted guns to get to one that didn't. Why? It is one thing to say that good guys are unarmed but show me a valid idea to keep bad guys from bringing guns into those places. Heck, in CA with their gun laws, bad people got their hands on guns illegally and legally and went into a gun free zone.
Click to expand...

Just remember that a lot of sheriff's and other law enforcement officers are politicians or use their office as a political battleground. I like my sheriff, he's a decent guy, but he can lean a little right. Some lean VERY right and make some statements with little support or research behind it. If you want to know what law enforcement officers think, ask a beat cop. They'll all tell you the last thing they want to see is more guns on the street.

The reason this all happens in gun free zones - or at least my thought pulled from my @ss - gun free zones are easy to establish and it shows a desire by the public at large to reduce guns. Especially in places where a lot of people gather. The idiots that keep shooting up the place seem to go after places where people gather, not specifically gun free zones. Short version, gun free zones are an effect, not a cause of gun violence. With all that, I don't think it's incredibly effective, but it's a nice thought.
 
michaelskis said:
I find it interesting that there are now several heads of law enforcements (not some night show entertainer), recommends that more people conceal carry. This is including a democrat sheriff in New York, the sheriff in Detroit and the sherrif in Millwakee. These are guys who see this stuff on a day to day basis in real life, some some theoretical lab rat type experiment. The experience by someone from the daily show is a joke and I am surprised you would even post it. . . [/URL]
Click to expand...

Sure, cops are in favor of more people carrying concealed weapons, it makes it that much easier to find a reason to shoot more black people. :not:
 
Hink said:
I would guess I could find just as many law enforcement officers / military / etc. who don't support having people with guns. I certainly can find lots of articles that support it.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...good-guy-gun-concealed-carry-column/77108230/
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/oregon-shooting-gun-laws-213222
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/1...ng-good-guy-with-a-gun-myth-once-and-for-all/
http://www.thenation.com/article/combat-vets-destroy-the-nras-heroic-gunslinger-fantasy/

"an FBI analysis of 185 mass shootings over the past thirteen years found that a grand total of one was stopped by an armed civilian"
https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/20...r-incidents-in-the-u.s.-between-2000-and-2013

Look I don't argue we could use more trained police officers in the United States. That would probably help this situation more than anything. But that concept goes against the argument for why we need to arm citizens. Government power, or something. The idea that a guy with 4 hours of training is a good thing in a scary, potentially deadly situation, is a good thing, is just crazy. The kind of crazy it seems we support in this country. The idea that we defend with the 2nd Amendment. Clearly that wasn't the intention.

I think our country in general is smarter than that. I hope we see some changes for the better, before horrible ideas like arming civilians or putting more guns in the hands of people who have no good reason to have them day to day gets approved. Concealed carry is scary, but this goes beyond that. If you just like to hunt, why would you need a gun on your hip in a 7/11? Or at school? Or in a library? My guess... so you can shoot someone. Oh excuse me, "protection" from the inevitable government takeover. :r:
Click to expand...

The FBI analysis is surprising given these news stories... (LINK). But even if it was correct, it is missing a very important detail. How many mass shootings are located in a pistol free zone? ALL of the people that I know that have a CPL follow the law and don't carry within a pistol free zone so they are not even given the opportunity to stop the shooting. If only the bad guys have guns, it is almost statistically impossible for a good guy with a gun to stop him, unless that good guy was breaking the law. But that does happen too. Take a Doctor in Philly as an example.

I agree 100% that 4 hours of training is not enough. That is why I support a graduated licence that would require additional training depending on where you would carry the weapon, which would include large general assembly areas such as arenas, schools, if you have not only gone through additional marksman training, but also logged so many hours and rounds at gun range. I don't think everyone should carry all the time and I support having places (like schools, churches, hospitals) be concealed carry only with advanced permit.

Should someone with advanced training be permitted to conceal carry in a developmental disability facility (San Bernardino)? What about a movie theater (Aurora CO)? What about a hospital? (Philly) What about a school (pick one...)? All of these are examples of places where there were mass shootings in a gun free zone. If guns and people having guns only makes the problem worse, why are there no mass shootings at NRA conventions, Cabela's, gun shows, or similar locations? Why are there so many shootings in places like Chicago, NYC, and DC when they have such strict gun laws.

Someone is going to break the law and shoot someone, do you really think the sticker on the front door is going to stop them? The only thing it does is make sure that only the bad guy has a gun.
image.jpg


otterpop said:
Sure, cops are in favor of more people carrying concealed weapons, it makes it that much easier to find a reason to shoot more black people. :not:
Click to expand...

Do you realize how messed up that comment is given two of the three examples I posted are black sheriffs? That comment is so messed up that I don't think it even justifies a response.
 
We've been having an interesting debate at work about this - right now staff is unable to carry at work unless they are law enforcement. We've also been told we are going to be taking active shooter training in 2016 and they've begun pricing bulletproof glass across the front of our building. I would hope, with that, civilian staff with a CHL would be allowed to carry on city property, but then again, I worry that some of my coworkers would do better without a gun.
 
michaelskis said:
I agree 100% that 4 hours of training is not enough. That is why I support a graduated licence that would require additional training depending on where you would carry the weapon, which would include large general assembly areas such as arenas, schools, if you have not only gone through additional marksman training, but also logged so many hours and rounds at gun range. I don't think everyone should carry all the time and I support having places (like schools, churches, hospitals) be concealed carry only with advanced permit.
Click to expand...

Why do you need a gun at a church? Or a hospital? Or a school? To protect yourself? It is clear that your argument is that if a crazy person is going to kill people he / she is going to get away with it. A gun free zone won't help. So can't you then agree that putting more guns in any zone is going to make it more likely there will be shootings? I mean if a gun isn't present, no one can be shot. We probably all agree on that.

michaelskis said:
Should someone with advanced training be permitted to conceal carry in a developmental disability facility (San Bernardino)? What about a movie theater (Aurora CO)? What about a hospital? (Philly) What about a school (pick one...)? All of these are examples of places where there were mass shootings in a gun free zone. If guns and people having guns only makes the problem worse, why are there no mass shootings at NRA conventions, Cabela's, gun shows, or similar locations? Why are there so many shootings in places like Chicago, NYC, and DC when they have such strict gun laws.
Click to expand...

If that is your argument, I guess we probably need data on gun deaths to show how there are killings in the parking lots of NRA conventions, Cabela's and gun shows too. Probably not terror related, but they are probably due to angry people having easy access to fire arms. Some may have just purchased those firearms. Let me go to the government and look up the data.... oh wait.

What bothers me is that I support people owning guns. I support the gun industry and sport hunting. I have no qualms with people killing animals or shooting skeet. Shooting a gun is fun in the right context. What I don't support is putting guns in the hands of people who are unable to make good decisions in the heat of the moment. That means more people have a chance to die from a stray bullet. That means we get more vigilante justice. I don't support the need for a person to carry a gun with them into the store. All that does is allow that person to have to make a choice when someone robs the store whether or not that guy deserves to die. I don't like people having that choice, because if I am in the store too, I am part of that equation.

I see the value in the concept of having a good guy with a gun shoot the bad guy. It makes perfect sense in theory. It makes zero sense in reality. Zero.


michaelskis said:
Someone is going to break the law and shoot someone, do you really think the sticker on the front door is going to stop them? The only thing it does is make sure that only the bad guy has a gun.
.
Click to expand...

No I don't. But I also don't think a guy who got a concealed carry because he thinks the government is coming after him should be making the decisions about what makes me safe or not. We as a society needs to decide that. That is what police are for. If we truly see this as a problem, we need to better fund our police departments. We need to have public places better protected through government action, not vigilante justice. We need an organized, civilized response. Not this every man for himself mentality that seems to be permeating through it.
 
michaelskis said:
Do you realize how messed up that comment is given two of the three examples I posted are black sheriffs? That comment is so messed up that I don't think it even justifies a response.
Click to expand...

Yet you did. And by the way, my comment was sarcasm and hyperbole. Sarcasm is something conservatives don't seem to get (and why we need a sarcasm puncuation symbol). Though hyperbole is a conservative's go-to response.
 
otterpop said:
Yet you did. And by the way, my comment was sarcasm and hyperbole. Sarcasm is something conservatives don't seem to get (and why we need a sarcasm puncuation symbol). Though hyperbole is a conservative's go-to response.
Click to expand...

From now on in this thread we'll have to use the :tx: sign for sarcasm. Unless everyone prefers :redstar:.

My problem with the sheriff's is that they seem to use guns as a political election tool and not argue actual safety backed by government information, but like Hink said...

I still think gun free zones are just a shiny object in the whole argument. It doesn't make me feel safer, if I even notice the little sign. Most concealed carry people I know don't bother to disarm since no one will know they're carrying - and that doesn't bother me. Most criminals aren't going to stop because the place doesn't allow guns. Stop with the shiny distraction arguments. Let's try something, maybe just start with some research, and I know this is idealistic, but if that doesn't work try something else.
 
Hink, you keep talking about the Government taking guns.... and you're the only one (in here anyways). I did have concerns in the past, but I realize that it will NEVER happen. I have said it many times before, when I carry, I do for personal protection. I know of 5 other employees (including a former NYC cop) who keeps guns locked up (fully secure) in their car for the exact same reason.

Are there the loud extremest 2A people, absolutely. They would also get on my case for suggesting that people get better training if they are going to carry it, but once again, you just seem to generalize me as a far right wing republican. You know better than that by now.

I have had a gun put to my head before. Not a fun experience but I am thankful the guy didn't shoot. I have witnessed someone getting murdered by someone else who had an illegal gun. I friend was attacked and beaten while she was running.

It's is like a fire extinguisher or a home security alarm. You pray you never need to use it, but it is there if you ever do.



BTW, I agree we need a designated sarcasm icon....
 
michaelskis said:
Hink, you keep talking about the Government taking guns.... and you're the only one (in here anyways). I did have concerns in the past, but I realize that it will NEVER happen. I have said it many times before, when I carry, I do for personal protection. I know of 5 other employees (including a former NYC cop) who keeps guns locked up (fully secure) in their car for the exact same reason.

Are there the loud extremest 2A people, absolutely. They would also get on my case for suggesting that people get better training if they are going to carry it, but once again, you just seem to generalize me as a far right wing republican. You know better than that by now.

I have had a gun put to my head before. Not a fun experience but I am thankful the guy didn't shoot. I have witnessed someone getting murdered by someone else who had an illegal gun. I friend was attacked and beaten while she was running.

It's is like a fire extinguisher or a home security alarm. You pray you never need to use it, but it is there if you ever do.



BTW, I agree we need a designated sarcasm icon....
Click to expand...

I am trying to understand the reasoning for why our country needs so many guns. The general argument goes - it protects us from the government taking over. Or some other similar silliness. You may not agree, but that is the general argument. Until this recent "good guy with a gun" talk, that was really the main argument.

So personal protection from "bad guys"? What is the best case scenario for your gun going places with you? You never have to use it? What is the worst case scenario? You kill someone? I am just trying to make sense of why that is a good idea and if makes you safer and if the benefits outweigh the risks. It certainly doesn't make me safer that you have a gun. Or the other guy that has a gun on his hip. I am MUCH less safe because of that. No offense to you, but the more guns people have around me, the more likely someone is going to get shot (it actually goes up from 0% when no one has guns around me). Even if a good guy does it, it still means a bullet flying through the sky.

And no, it isn't anything like a fire extinguisher or a home security alarm. Those things save lives. No gun has ever done that. They take lives. Whether they are "good" or "bad", they are still lives.
 
Hink said:
And no, it isn't anything like a fire extinguisher or a home security alarm. Those things save lives. No gun has ever done that. They take lives. Whether they are "good" or "bad", they are still lives.
Click to expand...

I think our difference comes down to that particular phase. Ask the cops you know if they have ever had to pull their gun... then ask them if they have ever had to use it. From my experience, the vast majority have had to pull it, but very few have ever had to squeeze that trigger.

I don't know the ratio for people with CPLs but from what I know of my gun friends, even a lower percentage of those who pull out their gun actually squeeze the trigger. If pulling a gun makes a bad guy think twice about trying to harm me, my loved ones, or others in my proximity, and I don't need to pull the trigger, how is that not saving a life?
 
michaelskis said:
I think our difference comes down to that particular phase. Ask the cops you know if they have ever had to pull their gun... then ask them if they have ever had to use it. From my experience, the vast majority have had to pull it, but very few have ever had to squeeze that trigger.

I don't know the ratio for people with CPLs but from what I know of my gun friends, even a lower percentage of those who pull out their gun actually squeeze the trigger. If pulling a gun makes a bad guy think twice about trying to harm me, my loved ones, or others in my proximity, and I don't need to pull the trigger, how is that not saving a life?
Click to expand...

I don't know one cop that wants more guns on the street. Zero. I have asked 46 up to now. So far, no takers on the good guys with guns sentiment. Maybe I will get one some day.

The same way that diplomacy or conversation works, I don't need a gun to have a guy think twice. If a guy with a gun sees a gun, I am VERY doubtful that he doesn't pull the trigger. My guess is the bad guys sees a threat and goes after it. Life taken. Again, obviously we just have a difference of opinion on this.
 
Richmond Jake said:
We start our training next month. I have two people on my staff that are certified to provide citizen training in active shooter situations.
Click to expand...

Despite Hink's comments that it never saves lives, it did make a massive difference in Arapahoe CO on Dec. 13, 2013 where an armed assailant came in with the intention on committing mass murder. Because of an armed and trained civilian, the shooter was the only one killed that day.

Granted I never want anyone to get shot, but if I had to choose an armed gunman out to commit mass murder, or a school of children, you know what I would do.

I wish they offered it here, but we are a 'secure gun free facility' just like San Bernardino's situation a few weeks back.
 
I can't understand the wisdom of having a 'gun free zone' without any enforcement. Putting a sign up that declares an area gun-free is, well, pointless if you aren't going to have metal detectors or searches or other means to ensure that folks entering the zone are abiding by the law.
 
Maister said:
I can't understand the wisdom of having a 'gun free zone' without any enforcement. Putting a sign up that declares an area gun-free is, well, pointless if you aren't going to have metal detectors or searches or other means to ensure that folks entering the zone are abiding by the law.
Click to expand...

8-! 8-! :-c 8-!




THANK YOU! You get it! You Understand! [happy dance]
 
michaelskis said:
Despite Hink's comments that it never saves lives, it did make a massive difference in Arapahoe CO on Dec. 13, 2013 where an armed assailant came in with the intention on committing mass murder. Because of an armed and trained civilian, the shooter was the only one killed that day.
Click to expand...

Yes, my comments are what make that relevant :r:

--

Last night was hard to watch. I did it, but I am just amazed at how out there some of the candidates are.

Trump. Not a good showing. He seems to have Cruz as a friend but no one else. He even went after the crowd when the booed him. He may have "poll numbers", but reality is going to set in.
Cruz. Such an unlikable guy. Geez. I can't understand how he is so annoying. Not just his assine policy positions, but just his mannerisms, and his dickishness.
Rubio. Likeable. Not sure he is very good at explaining our Patriot Act, but was trying. He is way more Presidential then the rest of the lot.
Bush. He tried to zing Trump, but it is just so flat. He is just so flat. No emotion or fire.
Carson. Why is he even up there? I would say he is worse than Jeb in interest, and worse than Trump in ability. Just because he is a neurosurgeon doesn't mean you know anything about foreign policy.
Fiorina. Her, "I know the private sector" line would work if people in the private sector thought she didn't suck. Stop using that line.
Kasich. He didn't get much time to talk, but that is okay, he was so good using his hands that he didn't need words. Yikes. Bow out already.
Paul. I like that he is unwilling to back down on what he believes, even if he is crazy. Nice to see someone with conviction on the stage though.
Christie. Actually seems to be gaining ground. He is straight forward and does the least bloviating. I think he will move up after this debate.

---

My rankings on the night:

Rubio.
Christie.
Cruz.
Bush.
Trump.
Fiorina.
Carson
Paul
Kasich.
 
giff57 said:
Well, not really... http://edition.cnn.com/2013/12/14/us/colorado-school-shooting/
Click to expand...

You are correct, the report that I read was outdated as it was written before she passed away. Additionally, I found out that it was a deputized sheriff who pulled his gun, and the assailant took his own life without the deputy firing a round.

However, here is a link (I know, pro gun site... but you posted CNN so let's balance it out) that provides further details on the truth about gun free zones vs other areas. I am not saying all their stats are 100% correct, but being the FBI's claim that it has only prevented one situation when there are overwhelming reports saying that it is more makes you wonder what numbers to trust.
 
I'm on the other end of the spectrum. What I see are the Big Three Gasbags that are getting serious poll numbers but once votes are cast will begin to falter. Of the three, only Cruz holds office, but the way he's handled himself so far (basically iconoclastic relative to the Washington establishment), he still gets the Outsider Points. Of the three, he is the only one with a shot, in my opinion.

I think Christie is the most appealing to me as a voter from the other side of the aisle. I can't see voting for him myself but I can at least picture him as president. Even though on the opposite end of the spectrum from me, at least he's shown he can be pragmatic and not always blindly partisan. Of course that probably means he'll never get the nomination.

I really would like to see a president that could rise above the partisanship and push an agenda that looks to what's best for the country as opposed to what's being pushed by one side or the other. (ACA is such a classic example; it was essentially what the Right wanted under Clinton, but as soon as Obama suggested it, the Right was against it... not because it was bad policy but because it was the plan that came from the other side.)

I could see Christie getting rid of ACA and replacing it with a rebranded plan that the Right could get behind (because it was championed by a Republican), but that was largely the same as the current ACA. I think eliminating it altogether would be very unpopular once people started to see what that meant. We've already crossed the Rubicon with respect to socialized healthcare and there's no going back to the way things were.
 
Back
Top