Whats going wrong with the world? More shootings

dimitrispearljam

PJ_Soul wrote:

dimitrispearljam wrote:

so,for the moment guns are from protection,why need the police?
why pay taxis for have police??buy 50 guns and ammo and u protect your self better..
why to have airforce?
want to protect the country??
why not have an F-16c at your back yard?and a tanks and a navy carrier!!
why we dont have an ER table at hour houses and give treatment?do surgeries alone...
and firemen??they suck..
buy an ax and a ladder from your local shop..

and u can be a super hero...

You have a great way of putting things Dimi.

do u know where i can buy a Sport Billy bag???
cant fit the tank at the pj20 backpack..

pandora

comebackgirl wrote:

pandora wrote:

The rapes don't make sense to me...

If only half of those women were trained in personal gun use
we could say bye to 550 a** holes ... those without compassion, empathy,
value and respect for another human being
worst part is ... are they out there raping more?

And there are those who would say a woman should not be allowed to protect
herself with a gun :fp: nope just lay down and take it....

considering that about 85% of sexual assaults are perpetrated by someone known to the victim, I'm not sure guns would be effective in stopping the assaults. Typically when a victim knows the perpetrator they are going to be less likely to use a weapon to stop the assault because they're going to be taken more by surprise and initially think that the assailant will respect their protests. They're also unlikely to shoot someone they know or care about in some way. About 90% of those assaults involve alcohol, so the victims may be unable to protect themselves, with or without a gun. We know that self-defense classes aren't very effective in these types of situations, so I doubt guns will be. The focus really needs to be on primary prevention programs and bystander intervention.

So we are down to 10% I'll take that 100 less a**holes to continue to rape women.

PJ_Soul

comebackgirl wrote:

pandora wrote:

Zoso wrote:

I lived in australia for most of my life and your logic is kinda scary.. when in all other western countries if one mass murder occurs automatic weapons and gun laws tighen up... here it's like the more killings the more guns are bought hence the more chance of more shootings.. it doesn't make any sense!

The rapes don't make sense to me...

If only half of those women were trained in personal gun use
we could say bye to 550 a** holes ... those without compassion, empathy,
value and respect for another human being
worst part is ... are they out there raping more?

And there are those who would say a woman should not be allowed to protect
herself with a gun :fp: nope just lay down and take it....

considering that about 85% of sexual assaults are perpetrated by someone known to the victim, I'm not sure guns would be effective in stopping the assaults. Typically when a victim knows the perpetrator they are going to be less likely to use a weapon to stop the assault because they're going to be taken more by surprise and initially think that the assailant will respect their protests. They're also unlikely to shoot someone they know or care about in some way. About 90% of those assaults involve alcohol, so the victims may be unable to protect themselves, with or without a gun. We know that self-defense classes aren't very effective in these types of situations, so I doubt guns will be. The focus really needs to be on primary prevention programs and bystander intervention.

Some of those victims are also younger than 18.

pandora

Zoso wrote:

pandora wrote:

a quick google brought this that has some current statistics...
but it is common sense for most people

http://www.acorn-online.com/joomla15/fa ... crime.html

I'll see what else I can dig up.

Criminals will always have guns so there will always be crime but we can ...

fight fire with fire

thats the first lesson my kids are going to be taught 'fight fire with fire'.. they would grow up to be monsters or gun totting hill billies.

better than victims

dimitrispearljam

pandora wrote:

fight fire with fire

Pandora ,i remember my training at Airforce very well..
at safety manuals,we use water to fight the fire..

comebackgirl

PJ_Soul wrote:

comebackgirl wrote:

pandora wrote:

The rapes don't make sense to me...

If only half of those women were trained in personal gun use
we could say bye to 550 a** holes ... those without compassion, empathy,
value and respect for another human being
worst part is ... are they out there raping more?

And there are those who would say a woman should not be allowed to protect
herself with a gun :fp: nope just lay down and take it....

considering that about 85% of sexual assaults are perpetrated by someone known to the victim, I'm not sure guns would be effective in stopping the assaults. Typically when a victim knows the perpetrator they are going to be less likely to use a weapon to stop the assault because they're going to be taken more by surprise and initially think that the assailant will respect their protests. They're also unlikely to shoot someone they know or care about in some way. About 90% of those assaults involve alcohol, so the victims may be unable to protect themselves, with or without a gun. We know that self-defense classes aren't very effective in these types of situations, so I doubt guns will be. The focus really needs to be on primary prevention programs and bystander intervention.

Some of those victims are also younger than 18.

Good point. So they can't legally own a gun anyway.

I don't think this makes them stupid, weak or unprepared.

redrock

Who is Joe Sabella?

pandora

comebackgirl wrote:

pandora wrote:

Is that what you think?

I think being unprepared to protect oneself,
untrained in whatever protective measures one chooses,
and not having the forethought to be strong in a life and death situation
could make someone a victim
and after the fact they will very likely be kicking themselves for not handling it differently
if in fact they are still alive to regret their apathy.

I also included those with guns, illegal or legal who use a gun to protect or assault,
under the same criteria.

You think an assailant is hypothetical?
You think being prepared is in training?

I was taught from young on these simple principles of self preservation.

And no I do not think all victims are stupid or weak...
but I think you might have known that yes?

I do think we need to stop being victims and fight fire with fire.

Yes, that's what I think. Your statements crossed the line from a gun control discussion to unnecessary victim blaming. That's why I said it. As I stated in subsequent posts, there is no room for victim blaming in this discussion. While I do not agree with your position on gun control, I respect that it is your position. However your statements about victim blaming are a true example of a lack of empathy and I was surprised to see them posted.

Anyone can be a victim. It has nothing to do with preparedness, strength, intelligence or knowledge. Yes, there are steps that we can all take to make ourselves safer. I know that you believe one of those steps may be to possess a gun. While I don't agree, I think that there are steps we all take to make it less likely we'll be victimized (ie. locking our door at night, etc). Whether or not someone takes these steps reflects little on their character. The perpetrator, the person who chooses to violate another and to victimize them, should be the person bearing the responsibility for the crime.

Of course the victimizer is the responsible party but a victim is made each day, have a plan,
be prepared.

Locking the door? Is that a joke?

PJ_Soul

Zoso wrote:

pandora wrote:

redrock wrote:

Personal opinion or fact? Any valid and reliable statistics to back this? Links?

a quick google brought this that has some current statistics...
but it is common sense for most people

http://www.acorn-online.com/joomla15/fa ... crime.html

I'll see what else I can dig up.

Criminals will always have guns so there will always be crime but we can ...

fight fire with fire

thats the first lesson my kids are going to be taught 'fight fire with fire'.. they would grow up to be monsters or gun totting hill billies.

Yeah, it is an insane message to bolster for sure. But P literally talks like the US is a third world civil war zone, so I guess from her perspective it all makes sense.

DS1119

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

I just find it so pathetic that people say "well we should ban cars then since people die in accidents all the time". Cars are not made to kill anything. We also have strict laws with regards to personal transportation. And when someone breaks those laws, they get punished for it. They need to pass a series of tests in order to get one, then (at least where I live), they are on probation for a long period of time, with a sign in the window displayed at all times saying "novice driver", can't drive with any passengers after a certain time of day, and no tolerance on one violation of ANY amount of alcohol on their breath.

no one can claim that any type of restrictions even remotely near that are in place for gun owners.

You are kidding right?

mickeyrat

redrock wrote:

Who is Joe Sabella?

just a guy with an opinion and a desire to write to a newspaper.

PJ_Soul

pandora wrote:

comebackgirl wrote:

pandora wrote:

Is that what you think?

I think being unprepared to protect oneself,
untrained in whatever protective measures one chooses,
and not having the forethought to be strong in a life and death situation
could make someone a victim
and after the fact they will very likely be kicking themselves for not handling it differently
if in fact they are still alive to regret their apathy.

I also included those with guns, illegal or legal who use a gun to protect or assault,
under the same criteria.

You think an assailant is hypothetical?
You think being prepared is in training?

I was taught from young on these simple principles of self preservation.

And no I do not think all victims are stupid or weak...
but I think you might have known that yes?

I do think we need to stop being victims and fight fire with fire.

Yes, that's what I think. Your statements crossed the line from a gun control discussion to unnecessary victim blaming. That's why I said it. As I stated in subsequent posts, there is no room for victim blaming in this discussion. While I do not agree with your position on gun control, I respect that it is your position. However your statements about victim blaming are a true example of a lack of empathy and I was surprised to see them posted.

Anyone can be a victim. It has nothing to do with preparedness, strength, intelligence or knowledge. Yes, there are steps that we can all take to make ourselves safer. I know that you believe one of those steps may be to possess a gun. While I don't agree, I think that there are steps we all take to make it less likely we'll be victimized (ie. locking our door at night, etc). Whether or not someone takes these steps reflects little on their character. The perpetrator, the person who chooses to violate another and to victimize them, should be the person bearing the responsibility for the crime.

Of course the victimizer is the responsible party but a victim is made each day, have a plan,
be prepared.

Locking the door? Is that a joke?

So... were you lying when you said you don't own a gun?

redrock

mickeyrat wrote:

redrock wrote:

Who is Joe Sabella?

just a guy with an opinion and a desire to write to a newspaper.

Exactly - opinion.

mickeyrat

DS1119 wrote:

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

I just find it so pathetic that people say "well we should ban cars then since people die in accidents all the time". Cars are not made to kill anything. We also have strict laws with regards to personal transportation. And when someone breaks those laws, they get punished for it. They need to pass a series of tests in order to get one, then (at least where I live), they are on probation for a long period of time, with a sign in the window displayed at all times saying "novice driver", can't drive with any passengers after a certain time of day, and no tolerance on one violation of ANY amount of alcohol on their breath.

no one can claim that any type of restrictions even remotely near that are in place for gun owners.

You are kidding right?

come on down to the westland mall where seemingly every month is a gun show, that somehow managed to be immune from quite a few of these laws regarding selling or resale of fire arms.

pandora

dimitrispearljam wrote:

pandora wrote:

fight fire with fire

Pandora ,i remember my training at Airforce very well..
at safety manuals,we use water to fight the fire..

so how do you fight an attacker D ?...
one that is attacking your girl when you are not there

no police ... he's going to rape torture and murder her...
should she have a gun to save her own life?

or will you be going to a funeral?

pandora

PJ_Soul wrote:

So... were you lying when you said you don't own a gun?

I never lie ...

are you assuming again or insulting?

comebackgirl

pandora wrote:

comebackgirl wrote:

pandora wrote:

Is that what you think?

I think being unprepared to protect oneself,
untrained in whatever protective measures one chooses,
and not having the forethought to be strong in a life and death situation
could make someone a victim
and after the fact they will very likely be kicking themselves for not handling it differently
if in fact they are still alive to regret their apathy.

I also included those with guns, illegal or legal who use a gun to protect or assault,
under the same criteria.

You think an assailant is hypothetical?
You think being prepared is in training?

I was taught from young on these simple principles of self preservation.

And no I do not think all victims are stupid or weak...
but I think you might have known that yes?

I do think we need to stop being victims and fight fire with fire.

Yes, that's what I think. Your statements crossed the line from a gun control discussion to unnecessary victim blaming. That's why I said it. As I stated in subsequent posts, there is no room for victim blaming in this discussion. While I do not agree with your position on gun control, I respect that it is your position. However your statements about victim blaming are a true example of a lack of empathy and I was surprised to see them posted.

Anyone can be a victim. It has nothing to do with preparedness, strength, intelligence or knowledge. Yes, there are steps that we can all take to make ourselves safer. I know that you believe one of those steps may be to possess a gun. While I don't agree, I think that there are steps we all take to make it less likely we'll be victimized (ie. locking our door at night, etc). Whether or not someone takes these steps reflects little on their character. The perpetrator, the person who chooses to violate another and to victimize them, should be the person bearing the responsibility for the crime.

Of course the victimizer is the responsible party but a victim is made each day, have a plan,
be prepared.

Locking the door? Is that a joke?

You can be as prepared as possible, and that is not a guarantee you will not be victimized. The people that dropped their kids at daycare the day of the Oklahoma City bombing couldn't have kept their kids safe no matter how *prepared* they were. A great deal of violence is unpredictable. Some of the most prepared people have not been immune to this (cops, military, secret service, security personnel). Some people live with an extraordinary amount of fear. Believing they have a sense of control over unpredictable events gives them a sense of safety. I understand if this is what some people need to believe to make it through the day.

That last question appears antagonistic, so I will leave that part alone.

DS1119

norm wrote:

At least seven people were killed (including a shooter) at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin on Sunday. That’s 57 mass murders in 30 years.

And again the world focuses on these shootings...which are tragedies and my heart goes out to all involved, it really does...but I always point out how many were done by LEGALLY obtained weapons? Also, why doesn't anyone ever bring up mass shootings in other countries when it comes to gun control...they only worry about the US? I seem to remember that this has happened in many many many other countries worldwide, but yet the US is always the target. Coincidence?

comebackgirl

DS1119 wrote:

norm wrote:

At least seven people were killed (including a shooter) at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin on Sunday. That’s 57 mass murders in 30 years.

And again the world focuses on these shootings...which are tragedies and my heart goes out to all involved, it really does...but I always point out how many were done by LEGALLY obtained weapons? Also, why doesn't anyone ever bring up mass shootings in other countries when it comes to gun control...they only worry about the US? I seem to remember that this has happened in many many many other countries worldwide, but yet the US is always the target. Coincidence?

I think a post following this initial one pointed out that 3/4 of the guns in these shootings were obtained legally. There are shootings in other countries. There was a horrific one in Australia in 1996, that I believe resulted in 35 dead. After this there were stricter controls put in place around assault weapons. I don't believe there has been a shooting of this magnitude since.

DS1119

dimitrispearljam wrote:

pandora wrote:

fight fire with fire

Pandora ,i remember my training at Airforce very well..
at safety manuals,we use water to fight the fire..

Not always. CONTROLLED fires are actually set in our southwest to control fire.