America's Gun Violence

rgambs · June 2016

Godfather. said:
why wont he say "Islamic terrorist"..........because he's sleeping with the enemy ?
just a guess on my part.

Godfather.

I've been hearing this a lot lately from the right, I hope they keep it up, the Republican party will go down hard lol!

PJ_Soul · June 2016

Godfather. said:

Gern Blansten said:

Godfather. said:
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

pretty simple really, I agree with back ground checks (criminal and mental health) but in no way support any banning of a rifle, besides if you want to use percentages look up the stats for homicides with an "assault rifle" compared to other methods of killing.

Godfather.
What are the stats when you look up "mass killings" with assault rifles versus other means?

When the second amendment was written it look 60 seconds to reload. Come on man. The constitution called black people 3/5ths of a person. The document was just wrong in many cases.
this is a true today as was back then, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

again, I'll point out that "mass killings" and murder in general are committed by people or groups of people.
I respect your opinion but mine is different.

Godfather.

So you want everyone to be armed like the US government is? Fighter jets, nukes, drones, etc? As had been pointed out, the Ammendment was written so that the people could defend themselves against a tyrannical government. Well this day and age, assault rifles aren't going to do that. Not even close. So I guess the next step is weapons of mass destruction being hoarded in people's basements, sheds, and bomb shelters, so that they can uphold their rights as outlined in the 2nd Amendment?

HughFreakingDillon · June 2016

Godfather. said:
why wont he say "Islamic terrorist"..........because he's sleeping with the enemy ?
just a guess on my part.

Godfather.

PJ_Soul · June 2016

Godfather. said:
why wont he say "Islamic terrorist"..........because he's sleeping with the enemy ?
just a guess on my part.

Godfather.

I think it's pretty basic. He doesn't want more brown people being attacked on the street and stalked by men carrying assault rifles when they go to pray. He avoids the term because he knows how many racist assholes there are, and he is trying to keep them from acting like psychos by being careful about the language he uses in press conferences in the hopes that it might make even a tiny bit of difference in how ignorant people perceive random, innocent Muslims (or brown people... many of these idiots just think anyone who's brown is probably a Muslim, which is why Sikhs and Hindus, etc have been attacked too). That is his only motivation. It's not a conspiracy theory. He's just trying to not be inflammatory in an atmosphere that is already inflamed.

HughFreakingDillon · June 2016

PJ_Soul said:

Godfather. said:
why wont he say "Islamic terrorist"..........because he's sleeping with the enemy ?
just a guess on my part.

Godfather.
I think it's pretty basic. He doesn't want more brown people being attacked on the street and stalked by men carrying assault rifles when they go to pray. He avoids the term because he knows how many racist assholes there are, and he is trying to keep them from acting like psychos by being careful about the language he uses in press conferences in the hopes that it might make even a tiny bit of difference in how ignorant people perceive random, innocent Muslims (or brown people... many of these idiots just think anyone who's brown is probably a Muslim, which is why Sikhs and Hindus, etc have been attacked too). That is his only motivation. It's not a conspiracy theory. He's just trying to not be inflammatory in an atmosphere that is already inflamed.

excellently put. his critics call this being "too PC".

riotgrl · June 2016

When you hear people saying the only way to change our government is through armed insurrection....well, yep, I think some people think they have to have the same weapons as the government so they can be defeated.

I am sure the people that are saying that are just frustrated and angry but sometimes I think they are hoping for it

Godfather. · June 2016

Degeneratefk said:

Godfather. said:

Gern Blansten said:

Godfather. said:

Gern Blansten said:

Godfather. said:

Degeneratefk said:

Godfather. said:

Gern Blansten said:

Godfather. said:
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

pretty simple really, I agree with back ground checks (criminal and mental health) but in no way support any banning of a rifle, besides if you want to use percentages look up the stats for homicides with an "assault rifle" compared to other methods of killing.

Godfather.
What are the stats when you look up "mass killings" with assault rifles versus other means?

When the second amendment was written it look 60 seconds to reload. Come on man. The constitution called black people 3/5ths of a person. The document was just wrong in many cases.
this is a true today as was back then, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

again, I'll point out that "mass killings" and murder in general are committed by people or groups of people.
I respect your opinion but mine is different.

Godfather.

I think when people hear the term gun control, they think they will get all of their guns taken away. That's not what I advocate. I don't want to infringe your right to own guns. Just the ones that were meant for militaries. If you are part of a well regulated militia, that's a different scenario all together.
I think when people fight against gun control their main concern is not allowing stricter back ground checks but just fighting to keep what we have, for instance the gun used by the bar attacker I believe was not an AR 15 but Obama and Hillary go on the attack claiming we need to out law AR-15 automatic rifles, automatic rifles are already illegal, so with all the misinformation being given to the public to create fear and anger the gun debate will go on forever.

Godfather.

oh come on....what is the difference between an AR-15 and the assault rifle that was used?

Aren't they basically the same thing?

Did Obama and Hillary specifically call for outlawing the AR-15 or did they refer to "assault weapons"? Or did they not really even say that at all?

Edit: disagree that the debate will go on forever. Assault weapons will be banned...it's just a matter of time.
yes the AR-15 was mentioned as the assault weapon but my point is that Obama and Hillary don't care what it was and didn't take the time to find out and them and the media went after a ghost.

Godfather.

ridiculous....as I asked before...what is the difference between an AR-15 and the weapon the Orlando shooter used?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/06/14/guns-used-kill-49-orlando-high-capacity-common-weapons/85887260/
The Sig Sauer MCX .223-caliber rifle's magazine capacity is 30 rounds. The weapon is a semi-automatic rifle, which means each shot requires a separate pull of the trigger. The Sig Sauer MCX rifle takes an AR-15 style magazine and ammunition.
You are making an argument similar to "why won't he say radical islamic terrorist?"....doesn't matter when both subjects are the same damn thing
to someone who's not paying attention it may seem ridicules...look at the big picture, this whole gun debate is smoke and mirrors, this muslim presented the opportunity to attract the publics attention while Obama pulls other political non-sense that most Americans don't want...wait and see.

Godfather.

What? The gun debate is smoke and mirrors?

believe it or not there are political interests that out weigh the gun debate, in my opinion while us gullible folks argue over gun rights Obama is working on letting in a pile of serian immigrants
and yes that pisses me off.

Godfather.

Godfather. · June 2016

PJ_Soul said:

Godfather. said:

Gern Blansten said:

Godfather. said:
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

pretty simple really, I agree with back ground checks (criminal and mental health) but in no way support any banning of a rifle, besides if you want to use percentages look up the stats for homicides with an "assault rifle" compared to other methods of killing.

Godfather.
What are the stats when you look up "mass killings" with assault rifles versus other means?

When the second amendment was written it look 60 seconds to reload. Come on man. The constitution called black people 3/5ths of a person. The document was just wrong in many cases.
this is a true today as was back then, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

again, I'll point out that "mass killings" and murder in general are committed by people or groups of people.
I respect your opinion but mine is different.

Godfather.

So you want everyone to be armed like the US government is? Fighter jets, nukes, drones, etc? As had been pointed out, the Ammendment was written so that the people could defend themselves against a tyrannical government. Well this day and age, assault rifles aren't going to do that. Not even close. So I guess the next step is weapons of mass destruction being hoarded in people's basements, sheds, and bomb shelters, so that they can uphold their rights as outlined in the 2nd Amendment?

.......I need to borrow HFD's laughing icon, did I post "armed like the US government" ??????? your statement is invalid but thank you for playing.

Godfather.

Gern Blansten · June 2016

PJ_Soul said:

Godfather. said:
why wont he say "Islamic terrorist"..........because he's sleeping with the enemy ?
just a guess on my part.

Godfather.
I think it's pretty basic. He doesn't want more brown people being attacked on the street and stalked by men carrying assault rifles when they go to pray. He avoids the term because he knows how many racist assholes there are, and he is trying to keep them from acting like psychos by being careful about the language he uses in press conferences in the hopes that it might make even a tiny bit of difference in how ignorant people perceive random, innocent Muslims (or brown people... many of these idiots just think anyone who's brown is probably a Muslim, which is why Sikhs and Hindus, etc have been attacked too). That is his only motivation. It's not a conspiracy theory. He's just trying to not be inflammatory in an atmosphere that is already inflamed.

exactly.....he has to dumb it down for Trumpenstein

Gern Blansten · June 2016

Godfather. said:

PJ_Soul said:

Godfather. said:

Gern Blansten said:

Godfather. said:
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

pretty simple really, I agree with back ground checks (criminal and mental health) but in no way support any banning of a rifle, besides if you want to use percentages look up the stats for homicides with an "assault rifle" compared to other methods of killing.

Godfather.
What are the stats when you look up "mass killings" with assault rifles versus other means?

When the second amendment was written it look 60 seconds to reload. Come on man. The constitution called black people 3/5ths of a person. The document was just wrong in many cases.
this is a true today as was back then, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

again, I'll point out that "mass killings" and murder in general are committed by people or groups of people.
I respect your opinion but mine is different.

Godfather.

So you want everyone to be armed like the US government is? Fighter jets, nukes, drones, etc? As had been pointed out, the Ammendment was written so that the people could defend themselves against a tyrannical government. Well this day and age, assault rifles aren't going to do that. Not even close. So I guess the next step is weapons of mass destruction being hoarded in people's basements, sheds, and bomb shelters, so that they can uphold their rights as outlined in the 2nd Amendment?
.......I need to borrow HFD's laughing icon, did I post "armed like the US government" ??????? your statement is invalid but thank you for playing.

Godfather.

That has to be what you are suggesting....if you expect to be able to defend yourself against "tyranny" don't you need to be on equal footing?

I get a chuckle picturing you with your pistol going up against an Apache helicopter armed with missles

Godfather. · June 2016

the left is awfully weird in these parts, do you guy's send birthday cards to GITMO detainees ?

Godfather.

HughFreakingDillon · June 2016

Godfather. said:
the left is awfully weird in these parts, do you guy's send birthday cards to GITMO detainees ?

Godfather.

I don't know about anyone else, but I can't be labelled as left.

and no, I send them e-grams.

Gern Blansten · June 2016

yeah your hero (Reagan) supported the assault weapons ban...so there

dignin · June 2016

jeffbr said:

rgambs said:

mace1229 said:

Godfather. said:

Gern Blansten said:

Godfather. said:

Degeneratefk said:

Godfather. said:

Gern Blansten said:

Godfather. said:
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

pretty simple really, I agree with back ground checks (criminal and mental health) but in no way support any banning of a rifle, besides if you want to use percentages look up the stats for homicides with an "assault rifle" compared to other methods of killing.

Godfather.
What are the stats when you look up "mass killings" with assault rifles versus other means?

When the second amendment was written it look 60 seconds to reload. Come on man. The constitution called black people 3/5ths of a person. The document was just wrong in many cases.
this is a true today as was back then, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

again, I'll point out that "mass killings" and murder in general are committed by people or groups of people.
I respect your opinion but mine is different.

Godfather.

I think when people hear the term gun control, they think they will get all of their guns taken away. That's not what I advocate. I don't want to infringe your right to own guns. Just the ones that were meant for militaries. If you are part of a well regulated militia, that's a different scenario all together.
I think when people fight against gun control their main concern is not allowing stricter back ground checks but just fighting to keep what we have, for instance the gun used by the bar attacker I believe was not an AR 15 but Obama and Hillary go on the attack claiming we need to out law AR-15 automatic rifles, automatic rifles are already illegal, so with all the misinformation being given to the public to create fear and anger the gun debate will go on forever.

Godfather.

oh come on....what is the difference between an AR-15 and the assault rifle that was used?

Aren't they basically the same thing?

Did Obama and Hillary specifically call for outlawing the AR-15 or did they refer to "assault weapons"? Or did they not really even say that at all?

Edit: disagree that the debate will go on forever. Assault weapons will be banned...it's just a matter of time.
yes the AR-15 was mentioned as the assault weapon but my point is that Obama and Hillary don't care what it was and didn't take the time to find out and them and the media went after a ghost.

Godfather.

I agree with GF here. I've head HRC, Obama and others refer to the AR-15, even though it wasn't used. If there are implying "assault rifles" then they should just say assault rifles, and not use AR-15 as a broad term for all assault rifles. Yes, the gun was probably similar, but the AR-15 gets singled out, and has been on this thread 100 times. You can easily adapt it further to limit the number of rounds and reloading capabilities to make it like any other rifle and will keep many gun owners happy and satisfy those who want more gun control as well, but that is never suggested. Just a full out ban on a gun that wasn't used but has become the icon for terrorist attacks.
JeffBR and I did just that!
I was just about to chime in again! I think this is exactly the solution that needs to be taken. Quit talking about specific guns brands/manufacturers/appearance and instead talk about what features or capabilities should be allowed or not. This is a much more reasonable approach and better insures that you're getting the results you're looking for. As rgambs said, limit magazine capacity, folding stocks, but don't spend time worrying about whether to ban an AR-15 vs. an AK-47, vs. a Ruger 10/22. The make and model don't matter here. The capabilities of the firearm, whatever that firearm is, should be the focus.

I think that's what most gun control proponents want. That's why I started a thread about banning assault weapons and didn't specify a particular make or model. Similar to the assault weapons ban from the 90's....but I would like to see a less watered down bill with more teeth. I also see nothing wrong with using a particular weapon as the bad guy to have people rally around, that's just smart politics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

PJ_Soul · June 2016

Godfather. said:
the left is awfully weird in these parts, do you guy's send birthday cards to GITMO detainees ?

Godfather.

What makes you ask that?

EM194007 · June 2016

Godfather. said:

believe it or not there are political interests that out weigh the gun debate, in my opinion while us gullible folks argue over gun rights Obama is working on letting in a pile of serian immigrants
and yes that pisses me off.

Godfather.

According to State Department data, since June 12, 2016 441 Syrian refugees have been resettled in communities across the U.S. Just five of the recent arrivals are Christian the rest are Muslim, including 434 Sunni Muslims and one identified as simply “Moslem.” One is listed as having “no religion.”

The 441 new arrivals have been resettled across 26 states, with Illinois (60), Florida (49), and Arizona (38) taking in the most Syrian refugees over that four-day timeframe.

Of the 49 new Syrian refugees resettled in Florida since the attack, 10 have been resettled in the greater Orlando area — with five resettled in Orlando proper and five resettled in Kissimmee. The rest of the refugees settled in Florida were placed in Clearwater (six), Delray Beach (five), Miami (five), Pensacola (five), Tampa (18).

josevolution · June 2016

Godfather. said:

Degeneratefk said:

Godfather. said:

Gern Blansten said:

Godfather. said:

Gern Blansten said:

Godfather. said:

Degeneratefk said:

Godfather. said:

Gern Blansten said:

Godfather. said:
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

pretty simple really, I agree with back ground checks (criminal and mental health) but in no way support any banning of a rifle, besides if you want to use percentages look up the stats for homicides with an "assault rifle" compared to other methods of killing.

Godfather.
What are the stats when you look up "mass killings" with assault rifles versus other means?

When the second amendment was written it look 60 seconds to reload. Come on man. The constitution called black people 3/5ths of a person. The document was just wrong in many cases.
this is a true today as was back then, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

again, I'll point out that "mass killings" and murder in general are committed by people or groups of people.
I respect your opinion but mine is different.

Godfather.

I think when people hear the term gun control, they think they will get all of their guns taken away. That's not what I advocate. I don't want to infringe your right to own guns. Just the ones that were meant for militaries. If you are part of a well regulated militia, that's a different scenario all together.
I think when people fight against gun control their main concern is not allowing stricter back ground checks but just fighting to keep what we have, for instance the gun used by the bar attacker I believe was not an AR 15 but Obama and Hillary go on the attack claiming we need to out law AR-15 automatic rifles, automatic rifles are already illegal, so with all the misinformation being given to the public to create fear and anger the gun debate will go on forever.

Godfather.

oh come on....what is the difference between an AR-15 and the assault rifle that was used?

Aren't they basically the same thing?

Did Obama and Hillary specifically call for outlawing the AR-15 or did they refer to "assault weapons"? Or did they not really even say that at all?

Edit: disagree that the debate will go on forever. Assault weapons will be banned...it's just a matter of time.
yes the AR-15 was mentioned as the assault weapon but my point is that Obama and Hillary don't care what it was and didn't take the time to find out and them and the media went after a ghost.

Godfather.

ridiculous....as I asked before...what is the difference between an AR-15 and the weapon the Orlando shooter used?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/06/14/guns-used-kill-49-orlando-high-capacity-common-weapons/85887260/
The Sig Sauer MCX .223-caliber rifle's magazine capacity is 30 rounds. The weapon is a semi-automatic rifle, which means each shot requires a separate pull of the trigger. The Sig Sauer MCX rifle takes an AR-15 style magazine and ammunition.
You are making an argument similar to "why won't he say radical islamic terrorist?"....doesn't matter when both subjects are the same damn thing
to someone who's not paying attention it may seem ridicules...look at the big picture, this whole gun debate is smoke and mirrors, this muslim presented the opportunity to attract the publics attention while Obama pulls other political non-sense that most Americans don't want...wait and see.

Godfather.

What? The gun debate is smoke and mirrors?

believe it or not there are political interests that out weigh the gun debate, in my opinion while us gullible folks argue over gun rights Obama is working on letting in a pile of serian immigrants
and yes that pisses me off.

Godfather.

GF at least spell Syria correct damn how miss informed are you , Obama sleeping with the enemy really damn do you still believe in Elvis being alive !!

Bentleyspop · June 2016

josevolution said:

Godfather. said:

Degeneratefk said:

Godfather. said:

Gern Blansten said:

Godfather. said:

Gern Blansten said:

Godfather. said:

Degeneratefk said:

Godfather. said:

Gern Blansten said:

Godfather. said:
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

pretty simple really, I agree with back ground checks (criminal and mental health) but in no way support any banning of a rifle, besides if you want to use percentages look up the stats for homicides with an "assault rifle" compared to other methods of killing.

Godfather.
What are the stats when you look up "mass killings" with assault rifles versus other means?

When the second amendment was written it look 60 seconds to reload. Come on man. The constitution called black people 3/5ths of a person. The document was just wrong in many cases.
this is a true today as was back then, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

again, I'll point out that "mass killings" and murder in general are committed by people or groups of people.
I respect your opinion but mine is different.

Godfather.

I think when people hear the term gun control, they think they will get all of their guns taken away. That's not what I advocate. I don't want to infringe your right to own guns. Just the ones that were meant for militaries. If you are part of a well regulated militia, that's a different scenario all together.
I think when people fight against gun control their main concern is not allowing stricter back ground checks but just fighting to keep what we have, for instance the gun used by the bar attacker I believe was not an AR 15 but Obama and Hillary go on the attack claiming we need to out law AR-15 automatic rifles, automatic rifles are already illegal, so with all the misinformation being given to the public to create fear and anger the gun debate will go on forever.

Godfather.

oh come on....what is the difference between an AR-15 and the assault rifle that was used?

Aren't they basically the same thing?

Did Obama and Hillary specifically call for outlawing the AR-15 or did they refer to "assault weapons"? Or did they not really even say that at all?

Edit: disagree that the debate will go on forever. Assault weapons will be banned...it's just a matter of time.
yes the AR-15 was mentioned as the assault weapon but my point is that Obama and Hillary don't care what it was and didn't take the time to find out and them and the media went after a ghost.

Godfather.

ridiculous....as I asked before...what is the difference between an AR-15 and the weapon the Orlando shooter used?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/06/14/guns-used-kill-49-orlando-high-capacity-common-weapons/85887260/
The Sig Sauer MCX .223-caliber rifle's magazine capacity is 30 rounds. The weapon is a semi-automatic rifle, which means each shot requires a separate pull of the trigger. The Sig Sauer MCX rifle takes an AR-15 style magazine and ammunition.
You are making an argument similar to "why won't he say radical islamic terrorist?"....doesn't matter when both subjects are the same damn thing
to someone who's not paying attention it may seem ridicules...look at the big picture, this whole gun debate is smoke and mirrors, this muslim presented the opportunity to attract the publics attention while Obama pulls other political non-sense that most Americans don't want...wait and see.

Godfather.

What? The gun debate is smoke and mirrors?
believe it or not there are political interests that out weigh the gun debate, in my opinion while us gullible folks argue over gun rights Obama is working on letting in a pile of serian immigrants
and yes that pisses me off.

Godfather.

GF at least spell Syria correct damn how miss informed are you , Obama sleeping with the enemy really damn do you still believe in Elvis being alive !!

Elvis is alive
There was a 2nd shooter on the knoll
Man never walked on the moon
And the Rothschildd run the worlds financial systems

D'UH

dudeman · June 2016

josevolution said:

PJPOWER said:

Degeneratefk said:

PJPOWER said:

josevolution said:

PJPOWER said:

josevolution said:

PJPOWER said:
I'm all for profiling, if someone looks batshit crazy or acts out of sorts then keep them in sight. If someone has ties or communications with known terrorists or organizations or are on a no fly list then a big red alert box should pop up on those instant background checks to let the seller know that is the case. Let's add known violent gang affiliation databases and start tracking that info as well. Better border securities that prevent the flow of illegal drugs and firearms.
Let's try that a few years. If the government abuses that authority, then we can push for a repeal. I still do not see any logical or realistic way of getting "assault rifles" out of the hands of civilians due to modern technology, but I think it's a good idea for people to have access and knowledge of who they are selling to in order to make informed decisions. Blocking access to those databases does seem pretty crazy. Hell, let's make that public access so we all know if we are living next to a suspected terrorist. Follow through with harsh punishments for violent offenders
I do not support "mental health databases" or whatever is being pushed in that realm, not that I think people with mental health problems should be buying guns, but because it could potentially turn those that really need help away and seems like a major violation of privacy.
I am adamantly apposed to any confiscation programs as it would essentially start a civil war. If you are okay with a police state then that is your prerogative. Buyback programs have been largely unsuccessful.
The problem is that there is no way of 100% stopping such an intigrated and culturally diverse society from experiencing problems with sociopathic individuals. You can personally start helping society by being realistic and aware of your surroundings. You do not have to live in fear, but know exits and what not when you go into places. Know some basic survival skills for if you are put in one of these situations. You do not have to wait on the politicians to enact laws to start doing those things!
Admirable coming from you , I bet none of the above you mention ever gets put in place why let's see if you can tell me why ? It's easy just three letters you know the letters I'm talking about ...
That and any time a bill gets brought up there are about 100 things that try and get sneaked in for either political reasons or to please constituents. Nothing is ever simple and straightforward.
What are the letters I'm talking about its easy let me help you , NRA they are more powerful than the POTUS , congress, senate ...nothing will ever get done with them in charge !
Not to mention a little notion of being innocent until proven guilty. If rights start being taken away because someone is "presumed" or "assumed", then I'm thinking there is a 99% chance "suspected" terrorists will gain back their ability to purchase firearms after one or two lawsuits make those weak laws disappear for good. My question is "What are you doing to help". Posting on a Pearl Jam forum isn't exactly helping. It has been broadcast several times how a trained individual saved lives in Orlando because he had knowledge of situational awareness. There are free workshops all the time related to workplace safety, survival skills, etc. I have attended and participated in countless. That does not give me a 100% chance of surviving something like happened in Orlando, but it sure as hell raises those odds. It starts on a personal level. Maybe some sort of situational awareness class should be a mandatory part of high school curriculum...that stands the potential of decreasing rapes, human trafficking, workplace violence, terrorist attacks. Most people don't even know how to properly apply a tourniquet...that's pathetic. Personal responsibility or lack there of has most definitely, undeniably been a factor in almost all of these situations. In Orlando, it took 3 hours for SWAT to enter the building. What would you have done during those three hours? Sheep or sheepdog?
Personal accountability of who? The victims? The cops? How much killing was actually done after the initial 15 minutes? Hostage situations typically last much longer than 3 hours. What were they doing? Figuring out a plan that would kill the least amount of people. You can't just come up with that in 20 minutes.
You misunderstood my question. If you were inside with the asshole, what would you do in those 3 hours? Do you know some of the breathing techniques to calm your heart rate so that you can think clearly under pressure or how to apply a simply tourniquet if needed? There are free classes out there that teach these things, just like there are CPR classes... Knowledge of these things would be helpful in so many situations outside of just an event like this.
While you make it sound plausible , it's absurd that I'd have to be trained in survival skills to go out dancing with my wife ! Doesn't it make more sense to make it harder for people to get the weapons ? Maybe just maybe pass some laws to get this done ...

I don't think that it's absurd to take responsibility for your own personal safety. In fact, I find it alarming that so many people in this nation full of people who want to be recognized as individuals would rather rely on the government to protect their lives.

I agree that one function of our government is to keep the citizens safe but at the end of the day, all they are required to do is arrest the criminals.

oftenreading · June 2016

dudeman said:

josevolution said:

PJPOWER said:

Degeneratefk said:

PJPOWER said:

josevolution said:

PJPOWER said:

josevolution said:

PJPOWER said:
I'm all for profiling, if someone looks batshit crazy or acts out of sorts then keep them in sight. If someone has ties or communications with known terrorists or organizations or are on a no fly list then a big red alert box should pop up on those instant background checks to let the seller know that is the case. Let's add known violent gang affiliation databases and start tracking that info as well. Better border securities that prevent the flow of illegal drugs and firearms.
Let's try that a few years. If the government abuses that authority, then we can push for a repeal. I still do not see any logical or realistic way of getting "assault rifles" out of the hands of civilians due to modern technology, but I think it's a good idea for people to have access and knowledge of who they are selling to in order to make informed decisions. Blocking access to those databases does seem pretty crazy. Hell, let's make that public access so we all know if we are living next to a suspected terrorist. Follow through with harsh punishments for violent offenders
I do not support "mental health databases" or whatever is being pushed in that realm, not that I think people with mental health problems should be buying guns, but because it could potentially turn those that really need help away and seems like a major violation of privacy.
I am adamantly apposed to any confiscation programs as it would essentially start a civil war. If you are okay with a police state then that is your prerogative. Buyback programs have been largely unsuccessful.
The problem is that there is no way of 100% stopping such an intigrated and culturally diverse society from experiencing problems with sociopathic individuals. You can personally start helping society by being realistic and aware of your surroundings. You do not have to live in fear, but know exits and what not when you go into places. Know some basic survival skills for if you are put in one of these situations. You do not have to wait on the politicians to enact laws to start doing those things!
Admirable coming from you , I bet none of the above you mention ever gets put in place why let's see if you can tell me why ? It's easy just three letters you know the letters I'm talking about ...
That and any time a bill gets brought up there are about 100 things that try and get sneaked in for either political reasons or to please constituents. Nothing is ever simple and straightforward.
What are the letters I'm talking about its easy let me help you , NRA they are more powerful than the POTUS , congress, senate ...nothing will ever get done with them in charge !
Not to mention a little notion of being innocent until proven guilty. If rights start being taken away because someone is "presumed" or "assumed", then I'm thinking there is a 99% chance "suspected" terrorists will gain back their ability to purchase firearms after one or two lawsuits make those weak laws disappear for good. My question is "What are you doing to help". Posting on a Pearl Jam forum isn't exactly helping. It has been broadcast several times how a trained individual saved lives in Orlando because he had knowledge of situational awareness. There are free workshops all the time related to workplace safety, survival skills, etc. I have attended and participated in countless. That does not give me a 100% chance of surviving something like happened in Orlando, but it sure as hell raises those odds. It starts on a personal level. Maybe some sort of situational awareness class should be a mandatory part of high school curriculum...that stands the potential of decreasing rapes, human trafficking, workplace violence, terrorist attacks. Most people don't even know how to properly apply a tourniquet...that's pathetic. Personal responsibility or lack there of has most definitely, undeniably been a factor in almost all of these situations. In Orlando, it took 3 hours for SWAT to enter the building. What would you have done during those three hours? Sheep or sheepdog?
Personal accountability of who? The victims? The cops? How much killing was actually done after the initial 15 minutes? Hostage situations typically last much longer than 3 hours. What were they doing? Figuring out a plan that would kill the least amount of people. You can't just come up with that in 20 minutes.
You misunderstood my question. If you were inside with the asshole, what would you do in those 3 hours? Do you know some of the breathing techniques to calm your heart rate so that you can think clearly under pressure or how to apply a simply tourniquet if needed? There are free classes out there that teach these things, just like there are CPR classes... Knowledge of these things would be helpful in so many situations outside of just an event like this.
While you make it sound plausible , it's absurd that I'd have to be trained in survival skills to go out dancing with my wife ! Doesn't it make more sense to make it harder for people to get the weapons ? Maybe just maybe pass some laws to get this done ...
I don't think that it's absurd to take responsibility for your own personal safety. In fact, I find it alarming that so many people in this nation full of people who want to be recognized as individuals would rather rely on the government to protect their lives.

I agree that one function of our government is to keep the citizens safe but at the end of the day, all they are required to do is arrest the criminals.

No. What the government should be doing is facilitating an entire framework of a healthy society that promotes safety for its citizens. If all they are doing is arresting criminals after they have committed a crime, the government has failed in its duty.

Many, many countries understand this.

America's Gun Violence

Comments

Categories