America's Gun Violence

i_lov_it

PJ_Soul said:

i_lov_it said:

PJ_Soul said:

my2hands said:

PJ_Soul said:

rssesq said:

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...

PJ_Soul

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.

rssesq

I don't fear americans with guns. I fear ....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPD-YfKXM5E

my2hands

PJ_Soul said:

rssesq said:

PJ_Soul said:

my2hands said:

PJ_Soul said:

rssesq said:

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?

PJ_Soul

rssesq said:

I don't fear americans with guns. I fear ....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPD-YfKXM5E

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.

my2hands

Definitely sad and depressing

rssesq

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

PJ_Soul

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.

PJPOWER

PJ_Soul said:

my2hands said:

PJ_Soul said:

rssesq said:

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...

my2hands

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_Soul

PJPOWER said:

PJ_Soul said:

my2hands said:

PJ_Soul said:

rssesq said:

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).

my2hands

https://youtu.be/juMX31y329E

my2hands

^ 47 square blocks with 2,000 homeless... east Vancouver is child's play

rssesq

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

PJPOWER

PJ_Soul said:

PJPOWER said:

PJ_Soul said:

my2hands said:

PJ_Soul said:

rssesq said:

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

my2hands

https://youtu.be/QcxJPh3tOaw

"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

rssesq

we gotz rollin 60 og homeless. USA USA lol
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4d86tmZO600

PJ_Soul

my2hands said:

https://youtu.be/juMX31y329E

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. I guess my point is that guns make America's streets scarier than they would be if guns weren't an American obsession.

joseph33

Degeneratefk said:

Godfather. said:

Degeneratefk 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.

Go Beavers

joseph33 said:

Degeneratefk said:

Godfather. said:

Degeneratefk 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?