America's Gun Violence

1155156158160161419

Comments

  • rssesqrssesq Fairfield CountyPosts: 3,299

    "Apology made to whoever it pleases, still they got me like Jesus." Chuck D
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 41,037
    rssesq said:


    :confused: Next to no one thinks gun control should keep people in the protection industry from carrying guns.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • my2handsmy2hands Posts: 14,505
    PJ_Soul said:

    rssesq said:


    :confused: Next to no one thinks gun control should keep people in the protection industry from carrying guns.
    It's an interesting point actually. What's the difference if Bloomberg carries the gun or he pays someone to carry it for him? And why should one person be allowed the right to carry a firearm for self defense (or have someone carry for him in this case) and another person is not?

    Tricky stuff
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 41,037
    edited March 2017
    my2hands said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    rssesq said:


    :confused: Next to no one thinks gun control should keep people in the protection industry from carrying guns.
    It's an interesting point actually. What's the difference if Bloomberg carries the gun or he pays someone to carry it for him? And why should one person be allowed the right to carry a firearm for self defense (or have someone carry for him in this case) and another person is not?

    Tricky stuff
    Not really. Carrying privately vs carrying professionally. It's not a very complicated distinction. One is specifically trained to deal with dangerous situations and to use their firearms in a way that doesn't, say, endanger by-standers too much, and they are less likely use the gun unnecessarily or misread a situation, etc. The other is most likely completely clueless about how to deal with dangerous situations like that, and may endanger innocent people while trying to protect themselves, or may not even be able to read the situation well enough to determine if they are even in danger or not, which could lead to unjustified shootings.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 2,457
    edited March 2017
    ponytd said:

    PJPOWER said:

    rgambs said:

    unsung said:

    My State Constitution says that I am the militia. Case closed.

    PJPOWER said:

    unsung said:

    My State Constitution says that I am the militia. Case closed.

    The federal Constitution also says that you are the militia, so you are double covered :)
    Ahhh but are you well-regulated?
    Of course not.
    Bound by state and federal laws and many other regulations based on the arms that one can have...I would say yes, well regulated. Did you watch the video I posted? All of this is covered.
    The video, where he doesn't comment on the well regulated part, but makes huge reaches and leaps to try and interpret the 2nd amendment to fit personal beliefs? Don't you ever wonder, if it was so important, why didn't they spend a little more time on making it more clear? And what will you guys do when you hit the upper age limit of the militia? (Thanks for your service, by the way!) Pro-gun folks refer to the original intent when it fits their argument, and then back off the original intent when it doesn't. So yesterday trump sneakily signs into law making easier for mentally ill people to get guns. Is this part of the original intent? And why no usual trump fanfare around it?
    In reference to the EO that Trump overturned, yes it's true that NRA wanted it gone, but you know who else wanted it gone? The ACLU. It was a poorly put together EO that restricted people who receive disability benefits because they suffer from "mental illness",which includes eating disorders, from the ability to purchase a firearm . Yes, that EO restricted people who shouldn't be buying a gun from being able to buy one, but it also restricted people who should be able to buy one from being able to.

    As a gun owner, I hope that they pass new legislature to enact stricter gun laws that is more defined to stop people that have no business from being able to buy one. I know lots of people who own guns, but I know no one who thinks that just any person should be able to buy a gun. Every single person I know who owns guns wants more but better restrictions.
    I didn't find a lot of info about the bill Obama passed, but that was pretty much what I gathered too. There are a lot of "mentally ill" people (at least according to the bill they are mentally ill) who pose no physical threat, but this still classified them as too dangerous to own a gun. From what I gathered he reversed it because it unfairly placed too many people into that category.
    I also agree with your last statement. I would also be for strict gun laws that target the right people, and not just everyone.
  • rssesqrssesq Fairfield CountyPosts: 3,299
    PJ_Soul said:

    my2hands said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    rssesq said:


    :confused: Next to no one thinks gun control should keep people in the protection industry from carrying guns.
    It's an interesting point actually. What's the difference if Bloomberg carries the gun or he pays someone to carry it for him? And why should one person be allowed the right to carry a firearm for self defense (or have someone carry for him in this case) and another person is not?

    Tricky stuff
    Not really. Carrying privately vs carrying professionally. It's not a very complicated distinction. One is specifically trained to deal with dangerous situations and to use their firearms in a way that doesn't, say, endanger by-standers too much, and they are less likely use the gun unnecessarily or misread a situation, etc. The other is most likely completely clueless about how to deal with dangerous situations like that, and may endanger innocent people while trying to protect themselves, or may not even be able to read the situation well enough to determine if they are even in danger or not, which could lead to unjustified shootings.
    So basically only the super rich should have armed protection for themselves and family. Point well taken.

    "Apology made to whoever it pleases, still they got me like Jesus." Chuck D
  • i_lov_iti_lov_it Perth, Western AustraliaPosts: 3,898
    PJ_Soul said:

    my2hands said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    rssesq said:


    :confused: Next to no one thinks gun control should keep people in the protection industry from carrying guns.
    It's an interesting point actually. What's the difference if Bloomberg carries the gun or he pays someone to carry it for him? And why should one person be allowed the right to carry a firearm for self defense (or have someone carry for him in this case) and another person is not?

    Tricky stuff
    Not really. Carrying privately vs carrying professionally. It's not a very complicated distinction. One is specifically trained to deal with dangerous situations and to use their firearms in a way that doesn't, say, endanger by-standers too much, and they are less likely use the gun unnecessarily or misread a situation, etc. The other is most likely completely clueless about how to deal with dangerous situations like that, and may endanger innocent people while trying to protect themselves, or may not even be able to read the situation well enough to determine if they are even in danger or not, which could lead to unjustified shootings.
    So one Law for one Person and another Law for another?
    E.V. - "Music is a Weapon of Mass Construction"
    Perth-20th March 1998
    Perth-23rd February 2003
    Perth-25th November 2006
    Perth-14th November 2009
    E.V. - Perth-31st March, 1st April 2011
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 41,037
    edited March 2017
    rssesq said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    my2hands said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    rssesq said:


    :confused: Next to no one thinks gun control should keep people in the protection industry from carrying guns.
    It's an interesting point actually. What's the difference if Bloomberg carries the gun or he pays someone to carry it for him? And why should one person be allowed the right to carry a firearm for self defense (or have someone carry for him in this case) and another person is not?

    Tricky stuff
    Not really. Carrying privately vs carrying professionally. It's not a very complicated distinction. One is specifically trained to deal with dangerous situations and to use their firearms in a way that doesn't, say, endanger by-standers too much, and they are less likely use the gun unnecessarily or misread a situation, etc. The other is most likely completely clueless about how to deal with dangerous situations like that, and may endanger innocent people while trying to protect themselves, or may not even be able to read the situation well enough to determine if they are even in danger or not, which could lead to unjustified shootings.
    So basically only the super rich should have armed protection for themselves and family. Point well taken.

    Hahaha, NOW you take up that cause? I don't see you whining about rich people being able to feed their kids and pay all their bills while poor people can't, but when guns come up you become an advocate for equality between the classes? This is about TRAINING AND KNOWLEDGE for the sake of PUBLIC SAFETY. Not about money. A poor person can become a cop or whatever just like a rich person can. And I really never heard of a poor person who needs to be protected by the secret service or a gang of private bodyguards, have you?
    Post edited by PJ_Soul on
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 41,037
    edited March 2017
    i_lov_it said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    my2hands said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    rssesq said:


    :confused: Next to no one thinks gun control should keep people in the protection industry from carrying guns.
    It's an interesting point actually. What's the difference if Bloomberg carries the gun or he pays someone to carry it for him? And why should one person be allowed the right to carry a firearm for self defense (or have someone carry for him in this case) and another person is not?

    Tricky stuff
    Not really. Carrying privately vs carrying professionally. It's not a very complicated distinction. One is specifically trained to deal with dangerous situations and to use their firearms in a way that doesn't, say, endanger by-standers too much, and they are less likely use the gun unnecessarily or misread a situation, etc. The other is most likely completely clueless about how to deal with dangerous situations like that, and may endanger innocent people while trying to protect themselves, or may not even be able to read the situation well enough to determine if they are even in danger or not, which could lead to unjustified shootings.
    So one Law for one Person and another Law for another?
    Yes, just like there is a law that people have to have a driver's license to drive a car, or be a doctor to perform surgery, or be a soldier with special skills to arm a stealth fighter. Not exactly a befuddling notion, is it?
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • rssesqrssesq Fairfield CountyPosts: 3,299
    he doesn't want licensed people carrying arms either. HE WANTS MERICA'S GUNS WITH A PASSION OF A FIVE FOOTER!. lol
    "Apology made to whoever it pleases, still they got me like Jesus." Chuck D
  • i_lov_iti_lov_it Perth, Western AustraliaPosts: 3,898
    PJ_Soul said:

    i_lov_it said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    my2hands said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    rssesq said:


    :confused: Next to no one thinks gun control should keep people in the protection industry from carrying guns.
    It's an interesting point actually. What's the difference if Bloomberg carries the gun or he pays someone to carry it for him? And why should one person be allowed the right to carry a firearm for self defense (or have someone carry for him in this case) and another person is not?

    Tricky stuff
    Not really. Carrying privately vs carrying professionally. It's not a very complicated distinction. One is specifically trained to deal with dangerous situations and to use their firearms in a way that doesn't, say, endanger by-standers too much, and they are less likely use the gun unnecessarily or misread a situation, etc. The other is most likely completely clueless about how to deal with dangerous situations like that, and may endanger innocent people while trying to protect themselves, or may not even be able to read the situation well enough to determine if they are even in danger or not, which could lead to unjustified shootings.
    So one Law for one Person and another Law for another?
    Yes, just like there is a law that people have to have a driver's license to drive a car, or be a doctor to perform surgery, or be a soldier with special skills to arm a stealth fighter. Not exactly a befuddling notion, is it?
    I see your point Alli but seriously one person can carry a Gun but not Another...I think if guns are to be banned then it should be banned for everyone...I also stated before in this Thread the Police included...
    E.V. - "Music is a Weapon of Mass Construction"
    Perth-20th March 1998
    Perth-23rd February 2003
    Perth-25th November 2006
    Perth-14th November 2009
    E.V. - Perth-31st March, 1st April 2011
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 41,037
    rssesq said:

    he doesn't want licensed people carrying arms either. HE WANTS MERICA'S GUNS WITH A PASSION OF A FIVE FOOTER!. lol

    I don't know what you're talking about.

    In any case, the gun problem in the US is mostly about the American gun culture, not regulation. The only thing that is going to solve the problem is changing the culture. That will take generations. Until then, Americans will have to live in fear of themselves.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • rssesqrssesq Fairfield CountyPosts: 3,299
    I don't fear americans with guns. I fear ....
    "Apology made to whoever it pleases, still they got me like Jesus." Chuck D
  • my2handsmy2hands Posts: 14,505
    edited March 2017
    PJ_Soul said:

    rssesq said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    my2hands said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    rssesq said:


    :confused: Next to no one thinks gun control should keep people in the protection industry from carrying guns.
    It's an interesting point actually. What's the difference if Bloomberg carries the gun or he pays someone to carry it for him? And why should one person be allowed the right to carry a firearm for self defense (or have someone carry for him in this case) and another person is not?

    Tricky stuff
    Not really. Carrying privately vs carrying professionally. It's not a very complicated distinction. One is specifically trained to deal with dangerous situations and to use their firearms in a way that doesn't, say, endanger by-standers too much, and they are less likely use the gun unnecessarily or misread a situation, etc. The other is most likely completely clueless about how to deal with dangerous situations like that, and may endanger innocent people while trying to protect themselves, or may not even be able to read the situation well enough to determine if they are even in danger or not, which could lead to unjustified shootings.
    So basically only the super rich should have armed protection for themselves and family. Point well taken.

    Hahaha, NOW you take up that cause? I don't see you whining about rich people being able to feed their kids and pay all their bills while poor people can't, but when guns come up you become an advocate for equality between the classes? This is about TRAINING AND KNOWLEDGE for the sake of PUBLIC SAFETY. Not about money. A poor person can become a cop or whatever just like a rich person can. And I really never heard of a poor person who needs to be protected by the secret service or a gang of private bodyguards, have you?
    I'm not a staunch 2nd Amendment gun rights advocate... not a big fan of guns... but it's really a tough issue and I think this is a big point

    So if a private citizen is properly trained, let's say with some type of licensing/oversight, then you would be ok with them carrying? Or only if they were actually being paid as security?

    How about just simple ownership? Should training and licensing be required for private citizens?
    Post edited by my2hands on
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 41,037
    edited March 2017
    rssesq said:

    I don't fear americans with guns. I fear ....

    :lol: So you are scared of extremely poor addicts minding their own business and trying to live their lives on skid row? No wonder you feel like you need a gun to protect yourself. You must be afraid of your own shadow!
    I walk down that street frequently. I was just there last weekend for a show in fact. It's sad and depressing, but not scary.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • my2handsmy2hands Posts: 14,505
    Definitely sad and depressing
  • rssesqrssesq Fairfield CountyPosts: 3,299
    homeless addicts don't frighten me but American streets turning into Vancouveresqe streets does
    "Apology made to whoever it pleases, still they got me like Jesus." Chuck D
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 41,037
    edited March 2017
    rssesq said:

    homeless addicts don't frighten me but American streets turning into Vancouveresqe streets does

    Vancouver's downtown eastside is a unique place. There are a lot of very specific amd complicated local factors that lead to those 4 square blocks right on the edge of the downtown core being what they are (and it is a hot button political issue in the city, always). Also, maybe you shouldn't judge the area when all you've seen is a video with an insanely biased title (FYI, it isn't the most dangerous street in Canada unless you count drug overdoses). Perhaps you should check it out for yourself before being worried about American becoming it. It is a community with a lot of sides, a lot of faces, a lot of suffering, a lot of friendship, a lot of sadness.
    Post edited by PJ_Soul on
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 3,647
    edited March 2017
    PJ_Soul said:

    my2hands said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    rssesq said:


    :confused: Next to no one thinks gun control should keep people in the protection industry from carrying guns.
    It's an interesting point actually. What's the difference if Bloomberg carries the gun or he pays someone to carry it for him? And why should one person be allowed the right to carry a firearm for self defense (or have someone carry for him in this case) and another person is not?

    Tricky stuff
    Not really. Carrying privately vs carrying professionally. It's not a very complicated distinction. One is specifically trained to deal with dangerous situations and to use their firearms in a way that doesn't, say, endanger by-standers too much, and they are less likely use the gun unnecessarily or misread a situation, etc. The other is most likely completely clueless about how to deal with dangerous situations like that, and may endanger innocent people while trying to protect themselves, or may not even be able to read the situation well enough to determine if they are even in danger or not, which could lead to unjustified shootings.
    So what about private citizens carrying that have been trained...aka concealed carry permits? In my state, Texas, you must have a FBI background check, training course that teaches you situational awareness/how to avoid shooting bystanders/how to deal with dangerous people/laws regarding justification, and be fingerprinted to legally carry a pistol...
    Post edited by PJPOWER on
    "At least I'm housebroken"
  • my2handsmy2hands Posts: 14,505
    rssesq said:

    homeless addicts don't frighten me but American streets turning into Vancouveresqe streets does

    Never heard of skid row in LA?

    You say Giuliani destroyed NYC, but most would argue the city was exactly what you fear now and he cleaned it up
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 41,037
    edited March 2017
    PJPOWER said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    my2hands said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    rssesq said:


    :confused: Next to no one thinks gun control should keep people in the protection industry from carrying guns.
    It's an interesting point actually. What's the difference if Bloomberg carries the gun or he pays someone to carry it for him? And why should one person be allowed the right to carry a firearm for self defense (or have someone carry for him in this case) and another person is not?

    Tricky stuff
    Not really. Carrying privately vs carrying professionally. It's not a very complicated distinction. One is specifically trained to deal with dangerous situations and to use their firearms in a way that doesn't, say, endanger by-standers too much, and they are less likely use the gun unnecessarily or misread a situation, etc. The other is most likely completely clueless about how to deal with dangerous situations like that, and may endanger innocent people while trying to protect themselves, or may not even be able to read the situation well enough to determine if they are even in danger or not, which could lead to unjustified shootings.
    So what about private citizens carrying that have been trained...aka concealed carry permits? In my state, Texas, you must have a FBI background check, training course that teaches you situational awareness/how to avoid shooting bystanders/how to deal with dangerous people/laws regarding justification, and be fingerprinted to legally carry a pistol...
    As I said, I think the problem is not gun laws, but gun culture. Ideally, America will evolve to a point where everyone isn't fucking scared of everything and have absolutely no desire to carry guns at all or to even really think about them, like the rest of the western world. People walking around the US with concealed guns just constantly perpetuates that gun culture IMO, and that is why I don't particularly support concealed, or, even more, open carry unless the profession necessitates it, i.e. cops, secret service, military, some security guards, etc).
    Post edited by PJ_Soul on
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • my2handsmy2hands Posts: 14,505
  • my2handsmy2hands Posts: 14,505
    ^ 47 square blocks with 2,000 homeless... east Vancouver is child's play
  • rssesqrssesq Fairfield CountyPosts: 3,299
    I have been there many times mi amigo. Meat and Bread is my ABSOLUTE FAVE! ;) Tell em Richie sent ya and he'll give u extra crumbled pork rind
    "Apology made to whoever it pleases, still they got me like Jesus." Chuck D
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 3,647
    PJ_Soul said:

    PJPOWER said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    my2hands said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    rssesq said:


    :confused: Next to no one thinks gun control should keep people in the protection industry from carrying guns.
    It's an interesting point actually. What's the difference if Bloomberg carries the gun or he pays someone to carry it for him? And why should one person be allowed the right to carry a firearm for self defense (or have someone carry for him in this case) and another person is not?

    Tricky stuff
    Not really. Carrying privately vs carrying professionally. It's not a very complicated distinction. One is specifically trained to deal with dangerous situations and to use their firearms in a way that doesn't, say, endanger by-standers too much, and they are less likely use the gun unnecessarily or misread a situation, etc. The other is most likely completely clueless about how to deal with dangerous situations like that, and may endanger innocent people while trying to protect themselves, or may not even be able to read the situation well enough to determine if they are even in danger or not, which could lead to unjustified shootings.
    So what about private citizens carrying that have been trained...aka concealed carry permits? In my state, Texas, you must have a FBI background check, training course that teaches you situational awareness/how to avoid shooting bystanders/how to deal with dangerous people/laws regarding justification, and be fingerprinted to legally carry a pistol...
    As I said, I think the problem is not gun laws, but gun culture. Ideally, American will evolve to a point where everyone isn't fucking scared of everything and have absolutely no desire to carry guns at all or to even really think about them, like the rest of the western world. People walking around the US with concealed guns just constantly perpetuates that gun culture IMO, and that is why I don't particularly support concealed, or, even more, open carry unless the profession necessitates it, i.e. cops, secret service, military, some security guards, etc).
    So your context of a person's safety is directly related to a person's profession? I can think of plenty of situations where private citizens working normal jobs may be at risk of being attacked...messy divorces, child custody issues, etc
    "At least I'm housebroken"
  • my2handsmy2hands Posts: 14,505


    "I feel like I could pick up a whole shopping cart and throw it across the street"

    He must have had the extra crumbled pork rind LOL
  • rssesqrssesq Fairfield CountyPosts: 3,299
    we gotz rollin 60 og homeless. USA USA lol
    "Apology made to whoever it pleases, still they got me like Jesus." Chuck D
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 41,037
    edited March 2017
    my2hands said:

    That looks a lot more dangerous than "Canada's most dangerous street" to me, mostly because I sense the general threat of gun violence. Whatever else one might feel uneasy about in the DTES in VanCity, there is no fear of guns there (we have a small number of shootings in Metro Vancouver, all gang activity - gang members killing gang members - and almost exclusively random events in suburban areas outside of the city. Targeted hits 98% of the time). Anyway, this isn't a competition between Vancouver's skid row and America. :lol: I guess my point is that guns make America's streets scarier than they would be if guns weren't an American obsession.
    Post edited by PJ_Soul on
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • joseph33joseph33 NashvillePosts: 761

    You people are so chicken shit scared of something nobody is even pushing for.

    wrong.......pay attention, I don't want to lose the right to buy and own an AR-15 or any model rifle or any semi-automatic weapon including
    semi auto pistols.

    Godfather.

    You don't have a right to buy military weapons.
    So if the South during the civil war had repeating rifles while the North only had muskets,the result of the war would be a South victory and therefore slavery would have continued. If the United States government ever turned on their own people,I myself would want a level playing field.
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 6,724
    joseph33 said:

    You people are so chicken shit scared of something nobody is even pushing for.

    wrong.......pay attention, I don't want to lose the right to buy and own an AR-15 or any model rifle or any semi-automatic weapon including
    semi auto pistols.

    Godfather.

    You don't have a right to buy military weapons.
    So if the South during the civil war had repeating rifles while the North only had muskets,the result of the war would be a South victory and therefore slavery would have continued. If the United States government ever turned on their own people,I myself would want a level playing field.
    You want civilians to have access to everything the military has?
Sign In or Register to comment.