27 minutes ago, ToeBius said:

I

Yes I am saying that they should have thought of there personal safety.  It is not the responsibility of the police to protect you.  In France they relied on the police.  In England they relied on the police.  In the United States they relied on the police. The police failed at that.  I have relied on myself to save my life, not the police.  I am still alive, thank god,  and I can see my family.  I get to go home because I understand that there are sick people out there and the  best way to live is to rely on me.  I understand that laws stop no man from crime.  Personal Responsibility is the primary answer to most questions.  People are to reliant on others to do the bidding for them.

 

Everywhere I go I have a Glock 19, 2 spare mags, a knife and a IFAK, because I know that anything can happen at anytime and there is no one out there to protect me but myself.

 

I'm sorry to say, but sentiment like this isn't a logical or well-thought out approach to gun ownership but is instead simply lunacy of the highest order.  As others have said, I really hope you've just not thought this through properly -- but you have just blamed the victims of this shooting for being shot.  You've said that because someone didn't carry a gun into their freaking church that they are at fault for not protecting themselves.

 

Not only is blaming the victim of a crime just downright stupid and nonsensical, but this mindset is actually a lot more dangerous than you or many others who hold similar beliefs will ever realize, and I can only really provide one example to try to explain that to you.

 

I know there's a growing number of people who believe, in the US, that a responsible citizen is one who carries a gun to protect themselves and their family.  I understand where this thought comes from and in theory it might sound like a good idea...

 

The simple reality, though, is that carrying a gun isn't some sort of ironclad proofing against being a victim of crime and in many cases is actually a burden.  This is why:

 

In the Las Vegas shooting, there were:

1. Thousands of people enjoying a music concert all huddled up in a venue.
2. One man with a stockpile of weapons and ammunition, set up in a booby trapped hotel room across the street. 

Basically, your logic states that those thousands of people should have both been allowed to carry guns into the venue (which I'm assuming they weren't) and indeed should have been carrying guns at this time.  In such a scenario, you theoretically have thousands of people with guns ("good guys with guns") against one "bad guy with a gun".

 

And, you know, as The NRA has taught us... "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun", right?

 

In Las Vegas, dead wrong.  Dead, dead, dead wrong.

 

I want you to just close your eyes and imagine the sheer carnage, confusion and chaos that would have arisen should two thousand ordinary people, carrying guns to 'protect themselves' have just suddenly pulled guns as soon as shots started flying.

 

You don't even need to complicate matters by throwing in any additional factors like the adrenaline rushes or some of these people obviously being drunk or intoxicated or whatever else...  You could've been looking at a death toll of five hundred, one thousand.  Easily.

 

Furthermore, can you even imagine what this would do to the police?  They're looking for a shooter, they're trying to evacuate the area... and all they see is a bunch of "responsible citizens" running amok with guns?!

 

Just lunacy.  I'm sorry, it's stupid.  That's an unbelievably stupid and ill-informed thing to say.

 

 

P.S

 

2 minutes ago, Narcissus said:

Relying on police to protect you is absurd. They will try their best because they are mostly brave men, but they should never be your only line of defense.

 

And women, thanks.

1 minute ago, Ben said:

Well I believe I should be King and I think god agrees with me, I guess I should just waltz upon into Buckingham Palace and take my rightful place, because y'know god told me, you don't need to clarify that of course, just trust me. 
 

So basically, you believe in a right from the 1700's so much that really, why change the laws even if it will save people, I'd rather protect this opinion of another person I've never met and probably know very little about.

 

Why debate my facts rather than demonstrate an absurd hyperbolic comment? No need. I look cool when I make absurd comments and skip the real argument which was their intent and which is what the 2nd amendment was based on.

 

Pfft. Silly Narcissus... trying to get a debate on facts rather than outrageous comments that have no bearing! What was I thinking !!!

1 minute ago, Narcissus said:

 

Why debate my facts rather than demonstrate an absurd hyperbolic comment? No need. I look cool when I make absurd comments and skip the real argument which was their intent and which is what the 2nd amendment was based on.

 

Pfft. Silly Narcissus... trying to get a debate on facts rather than outrageous comments that have no bearing! What was I thinking !!!

Facts? You understand your whole argument is that some guys in the 1700's said god gave you that right, you don't need to know whether god actually gave you that right and yet you believe it none the less. So why do you not believe that god told me that I should be King, yet you believe these other people who where born in the 1700's?

32 minutes ago, Kallus Rourke said:

 

Please tell me that's a joke.  If you legitimately believe that, you need to look up what a police officer's job entails.

See Warren v. District of Columbia. The job of the police is to investigate crimes and violations of city ordinances after it is committed.

 

On the rest of the post, while it may seem harsh, the world is a dangerous place. While most certainly not the victims fault, the main point that can be taken away is that there are sick individuals in the world, and as the old adage goes, when you need immediate help, police are only 5 minutes away on average. Meanwhile, it takes only minutes to bleed out from severe trauma to an artery.

 

As I pointed out in my previous post, the suspect was being chased by an armed citizen that intervened. The citizen was on the phone with dispatch as he chased the shot attacker at 95 mph. Even after the suspect crashed, it took the police 7 minutes to arrive to the biggest priority call in their log.

 

You can continue to rely on the police if you want, just don't expect me to give up on my own natural right to protect the life of myself and those around me.

Edited November 6, 20178 yr by c13

4 minutes ago, Sam said:

 

I'm sorry to say, but sentiment like this isn't a logical or well-thought out approach to gun ownership but is instead simply lunacy of the highest order.  As others have said, I really hope you've just not thought this through properly -- but you have just blamed the victims of this shooting for being shot.  You've said that because someone didn't carry a gun into their freaking church that they are at fault for not protecting themselves.

 

Not only is blaming the victim of a crime just downright stupid and nonsensical, but this mindset is actually a lot more dangerous than you or many others who hold similar beliefs will ever realize, and I can only really provide one example to try to explain that to you.

 

I know there's a growing number of people who believe, in the US, that a responsible citizen is one who carries a gun to protect themselves and their family.  I understand where this thought comes from and in theory it might sound like a good idea...

 

The simple reality, though, is that carrying a gun isn't some sort of ironclad proofing against being a victim of crime and in many cases is actually a burden.  This is why:

 

In the Las Vegas shooting, there were:

1. Thousands of people enjoying a music concert all huddled up in a venue.
2. One man with a stockpile of weapons and ammunition, set up in a booby trapped hotel room across the street. 

Basically, your logic states that those thousands of people should have both been allowed to carry guns into the venue (which I'm assuming they weren't) and indeed should have been carrying guns at this time.  In such a scenario, you theoretically have thousands of people with guns ("good guys with guns") against one "bad guy with a gun".

 

And, you know, as The NRA has taught us... "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun", right?

 

In Las Vegas, dead wrong.  Dead, dead, dead wrong.

 

I want you to just close your eyes and imagine the sheer carnage, confusion and chaos that would have arisen should two thousand ordinary people, carrying guns to 'protect themselves' have just suddenly pulled guns as soon as shots started flying.

 

You don't even need to complicate matters by throwing in any additional factors like the adrenaline rushes or some of these people obviously being drunk or intoxicated or whatever else...  You could've been looking at a death toll of five hundred, one thousand.  Easily.

 

Furthermore, can you even imagine what this would do to the police?  They're looking for a shooter, they're trying to evacuate the area... and all they see is a bunch of "responsible citizens" running amok with guns?!

 

Just lunacy.  I'm sorry, it's stupid.  That's an unbelievably stupid and ill-informed thing to say.

 

 

P.S

 

 

And women, thanks.

As stated in a previous comment that I made, the statement " the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun" depends on the situation.  Never did I ever say anything about Vegas.  

1 minute ago, ToeBius said:

As stated in a previous comment that I made, the statement " the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun" depends on the situation.  Never did I ever say anything about Vegas.  

 

No, you blamed victims of a shooting for not having a gun with them.

I don't see how that's any different to Vegas.

3 minutes ago, Sam said:

 

I'm sorry to say, but sentiment like this isn't a logical or well-thought out approach to gun ownership but is instead simply lunacy of the highest order.  As others have said, I really hope you've just not thought this through properly -- but you have just blamed the victims of this shooting for being shot.  You've said that because someone didn't carry a gun into their freaking church that they are at fault for not protecting themselves.

 

Not only is blaming the victim of a crime just downright stupid and nonsensical, but this mindset is actually a lot more dangerous than you or many others who hold similar beliefs will ever realize, and I can only really provide one example to try to explain that to you.

 

I know there's a growing number of people who believe, in the US, that a responsible citizen is one who carries a gun to protect themselves and their family.  I understand where this thought comes from and in theory it might sound like a good idea...

 

The simple reality, though, is that carrying a gun isn't some sort of ironclad proofing against being a victim of crime and in many cases is actually a burden.  This is why:

 

In the Las Vegas shooting, there were:

1. Thousands of people enjoying a music concert all huddled up in a venue.
2. One man with a stockpile of weapons and ammunition, set up in a booby trapped hotel room across the street. 

Basically, your logic states that those thousands of people should have both been allowed to carry guns into the venue (which I'm assuming they weren't) and indeed should have been carrying guns at this time.  In such a scenario, you theoretically have thousands of people with guns ("good guys with guns") against one "bad guy with a gun".

 

And, you know, as The NRA has taught us... "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun", right?

 

In Las Vegas, dead wrong.  Dead, dead, dead wrong.

 

I want you to just close your eyes and imagine the sheer carnage, confusion and chaos that would have arisen should two thousand ordinary people, carrying guns to 'protect themselves' have just suddenly pulled guns as soon as shots started flying.

 

You don't even need to complicate matters by throwing in any additional factors like the adrenaline rushes or some of these people obviously being drunk or intoxicated or whatever else...  You could've been looking at a death toll of five hundred, one thousand.  Easily.

 

Furthermore, can you even imagine what this would do to the police?  They're looking for a shooter, they're trying to evacuate the area... and all they see is a bunch of "responsible citizens" running amok with guns?!

 

Just lunacy.  I'm sorry, it's stupid.  That's an unbelievably stupid and ill-informed thing to say.

 

 

P.S

 

 

And women, thanks.

 

Welcome to the fray, Sam.

 

First off, I didn't mean to exclude women. I was typing as fast as my one hand can go which is slow. They serve just as much as the men and never meant any exclusion.

 

Anyways... you are taking an extreme example (read: the exception) and applying a ton of inferences that aren't real and mixing it in a bowl of not true to sorta' have an example of what things might be like. Maybe.

 

First of all, police are some of the most pro 2nd amendment believers that we have in this great country. Why? Because higher gun ownership relates DIRECTLY to less police killings. Police are some of our strongest advocates for conceal carry for the exact same reasons. So stating how awful the police would see that scenario is unrealistic and simply not factual.

 

Most anyone that has spent time around us conceal carry type people would realize that the majority of us are not waving our guns around all willy nilly and acting like the cartoon-esque characters you try and represent us to be. Feel like using google and looking something up? Look up the number of crimes, violent and otherwise that are stopped by firearm carrying citizens every year. After picking up your pride... try and find me even a handful of examples where they handled themselves in any way other than efficient and professional. Anyone want to lay odds on percentages? Now look at how many of those stories went out to mainstream media... now how much time/comment did they receive?

 

So you used an extreme example (the las vegas shooting) that is an anomaly of an extremely rare event and then applied your unfounded perceptions of how people would behave and then implied how that would be even more unbearable for the police when the exact opposite has historically been true... all to sorta' make a point... that was the opposite of what virtually every real world scenario has demonstrated.

 

16 minutes ago, Ben said:

Facts? You understand your whole argument is that some guys in the 1700's said god gave you that right, you don't need to know whether god actually gave you that right and yet you believe it none the less. So why do you not believe that god told me that I should be King, yet you believe these other people who where born in the 1700's?

 

My whole argument is predicated on the fact that the founders believed that our right to bear arms is an inherent one and not one given by the government. My whole premise of the 2nd amendment is based directly on the words of those who wrote it and why. Your hyperbolic and inflammatory comments aren't deluding the fact that the point we are arguing is whether the 2nd amendment gave us the right or defending an inherent right (irrespective of your belief in God). You are trying to twist the point every way you can because you were wrong. The 2nd amendment protects (from the government) our inherent right to defend ourselves, not grant the right.

 

 

2 hours ago, Hystery said:

 

You know, I've already mentioned that in another thread before, but a Constitution can be changed. In France, our first Constitution was written in 1791. As of today, we are at the fifth version of it, and it is often discussed to look all over it again to modify it and make a sixth version of it. Through all those changes of version, things were modified to fit better the society in which that new version was written, to offer a stable political situation for citizens, as well as better, more fitting rights for them.

 

Laws aren't engraved in marble. They can be modified. A constitution can be modified. Laws can be tweaked, updated, enhanced, erased depending on the context in which they are applied compared to the context in which they were written. Clinging to the constitution like this while automatically refusing to change anything about it is both stubborn and stupid. You (as in, american citizens) don't refuse it because it wouldn't make sense, you refuse it simply because you don't want it modified, even if it would make sense to do it. It's beyond me.

 

 

So I am kind of late, started writing this before I left for school but now I am home so if someone already said this... rip. The constitution is extremely difficult to be ratified, as a majority of every branch of the system has to agree on something (Legislative, Executive, and Judicial.) We have 27 I believe amendments and the constitution has been around for almost 250 years, which shows how little it is ratified, and that is good. The whole point of our government is to limit the power of individual people and create a fair and equal government. Of course a lot of people think it is an obviously good move to edit the amendment, but that would never happen unless you gave the president the power to edit the constitution in which case it would go against everything our founding fathers believed, and would just not work out. We want this to happen for the amendments we don't like but once someone gets in power that goes against our values and wants to change an amendment we believe in then we are against the whole idea of it. The writers of the constitution knew that it would last a while, and purposely made it difficult to change because they want a stable government, imagine every time there was an issue in our country the answer was to amend the constitution then nothing would stay the same per decade, and every time it would change it would make 50% of the people mad and 50% happy. You cant make everyone happy, and although I think the gun laws should be less lax the solution is not changing the constitution.

12 minutes ago, Sam said:

 

I'm sorry to say, but sentiment like this isn't a logical or well-thought out approach to gun ownership but is instead simply lunacy of the highest order.  As others have said, I really hope you've just not thought this through properly -- but you have just blamed the victims of this shooting for being shot.  You've said that because someone didn't carry a gun into their freaking church that they are at fault for not protecting themselves.

 

Not only is blaming the victim of a crime just downright stupid and nonsensical, but this mindset is actually a lot more dangerous than you or many others who hold similar beliefs will ever realize, and I can only really provide one example to try to explain that to you.

 

I know there's a growing number of people who believe, in the US, that a responsible citizen is one who carries a gun to protect themselves and their family.  I understand where this thought comes from and in theory it might sound like a good idea...

 

The simple reality, though, is that carrying a gun isn't some sort of ironclad proofing against being a victim of crime and in many cases is actually a burden.  This is why:

 

In the Las Vegas shooting, there were:

1. Thousands of people enjoying a music concert all huddled up in a venue.
2. One man with a stockpile of weapons and ammunition, set up in a booby trapped hotel room across the street. 

Basically, your logic states that those thousands of people should have both been allowed to carry guns into the venue (which I'm assuming they weren't) and indeed should have been carrying guns at this time.  In such a scenario, you theoretically have thousands of people with guns ("good guys with guns") against one "bad guy with a gun".

 

And, you know, as The NRA has taught us... "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun", right?

 

In Las Vegas, dead wrong.  Dead, dead, dead wrong.

 

I want you to just close your eyes and imagine the sheer carnage, confusion and chaos that would have arisen should two thousand ordinary people, carrying guns to 'protect themselves' have just suddenly pulled guns as soon as shots started flying.

 

You don't even need to complicate matters by throwing in any additional factors like the adrenaline rushes or some of these people obviously being drunk or intoxicated or whatever else...  You could've been looking at a death toll of five hundred, one thousand.  Easily.

 

Furthermore, can you even imagine what this would do to the police?  They're looking for a shooter, they're trying to evacuate the area... and all they see is a bunch of "responsible citizens" running amok with guns?!

 

Just lunacy.  I'm sorry, it's stupid.  That's an unbelievably stupid and ill-informed thing to say.

 

 

P.S

 

 

And women, thanks.

The Las Vegas scenario is an extreme outlier. As you pointed out, guns weren't allowed in the venue because of the alcohol consumption (NOT saying that they should have been). The shooter was in a high vantage point, capable of committing plunging fire down into a tightly packed crowd with limited exits. Even responding cops couldn't do anything besides make their way to the floor and breach, for fear of hitting innocents in the hotel while trying to fire several hundred meters away (the average police sniper engagement range is 70 meters).

 

It should also be noted that having a firearm in a hotel in Nevada is illegal.

 

But, we also have to look at scenarios that didn't make the news because they weren't flashy enough. Its a fact that most mass shootings, particularly schools, occur in  gun free zones where it is illegal for people to bring firearms. It also has an effect on other shootings, such as the movie theater shooting in Colorado. James Holmes had multiple theaters closer to him than the one he chose, including ones with bigger venues. But the one he chose was a gun free zone, unlike other ones.

 

The exact scenario you mentioned with multiple people pulling out concealed carry pieces happened a few days ago in Colorado. Multiple people drew their firearms, causing the suspect to flee from the scene.

 

Another example happened at the Clackamas Mall in Oregon, just 2 days before the Sandy Hook shooting. After a man started shooting an AR-15 at shoppers, a concealed carrier that didn't notice the gun free zone sign drew his Glock 22, taking aim at the shooter but not firing for fear of hitting bystanders. The shooter noticed however, running around a corner and shooting himself.

 

Ignoring this man's politics, he has a number of good points and statistics on mass shootings. Very few shooters choose to fight after confronting some one with a gun, be it civilians or law enforcement. The vast majority give up or kill themselves. At the very least, it pulls the shooter's attention away from the bystanders and puts his/her attention towards the bigger threat, the good guy with the gun.

 

 

57 minutes ago, ToeBius said:

You gave a better definition of mental health than most people.  That is the first issue we have.

The Second Amendment is not for hunting.  Read the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers.

If the Government can have these guns, then why cant I? 

Because the government isn't about to overthrow you that's why. The army have attack helicopters, tanks, miniguns.....does that mean we have to have them to? For what? I support the 2nd amendment but not when it is not brought up to date. The 2nd amendment was written at a time when the government was not like the ones we have today. America is a stable country in terms of finance and security. The 2nd amendment was written at a time when there were no such things as assault rifles. Times have changed. Or are you now saying that we should have slaves too because that's what the USA was built on?

19 minutes ago, c13 said:

See Warren v. District of Columbia. The job of the police is to investigate crimes and violations of city ordinances after it is committed.

 

On the rest of the post, while it may seem harsh, the world is a dangerous place. While most certainly not the victims fault, the main point that can be taken away is that there are sick individuals in the world, and as the old adage goes, when you need immediate help, police are only 5 minutes away on average. Meanwhile, it takes only minutes to bleed out from severe trauma to an artery.

 

As I pointed out in my previous post, the suspect was being chased by an armed citizen that intervened. The citizen was on the phone with dispatch as he chased the shot attacker at 95 mph. Even after the suspect crashed, it took the police 7 minutes to arrive to the biggest priority call in their log.

 

You can continue to rely on the police if you want, just don't expect me to give up on my own natural right to protect the life of myself and those around me.

 

Frankly, I could give a shit what a court rules.  There is a reason we call 911 and ask for the police.  We call them because we need them for help, and as we've seen multiple times, part of their job IS helping/rescuing people.  A lot of people have this mindset that just because cops are supposed to protect you that they are gods that can teleport to you.  It's unfortunate when emergency services are unable to get to you right away, but that's part of being human.  Cops can't be everywhere at once.

 

Protect the life of myself and those around me.

 

What makes me laugh the most about people that have a gun is that 99% of the time they never use it.  The other 1%? Target practice in the woods.  It's laughable that people get so upset about losing something they never use in the one off chance they may actually have to use it.  Tell me, how many cases are there where a gun owner has successfully intervened and saved someone?  Exactly, not many at all.

8 minutes ago, Narcissus said:

 

Welcome to the fray, Sam.

 

First off, I didn't mean to exclude women. I was typing as fast as my one hand can go which is slow. They serve just as much as the men and never meant any exclusion.

 

Anyways... you are taking an extreme example (read: the exception) and applying a ton of inferences that aren't real and mixing it in a bowl of not true to sorta' have an example of what things might be like. Maybe.

 

First of all, police are some of the most pro 2nd amendment believers that we have in this great country. Why? Because higher gun ownership relates DIRECTLY to less police killings. Police are some of our strongest advocates for conceal carry for the exact same reasons. So stating how awful the police would see that scenario is unrealistic and simply not factual.

 

Most anyone that has spent time around us conceal carry type people would realize that the majority of us are not waving our guns around all willy nilly and acting like the cartoon-esque characters you try and represent us to be. Feel like using google and looking something up? Look up the number of crimes, violent and otherwise that are stopped by firearm carrying citizens every year. After picking up your pride... try and find me even a handful of examples where they handled themselves in any way other than efficient and professional. Anyone want to lay odds on percentages? Now look at how many of those stories went out to mainstream media... now how much time/comment did they receive?

 

So you used an extreme example (the las vegas shooting) that is an anomaly of an extremely rare event and then applied your unfounded perceptions of how people would behave and then implied how that would be even more unbearable for the police when the exact opposite has historically been true... all to sorta' make a point... that was the opposite of what virtually every real world scenario has demonstrated.

 

 

My whole argument is predicated on the fact that the founders believed that our right to bear arms is an inherent one and not one given by the government. My whole premise of the 2nd amendment is based directly on the words of those who wrote it and why. Your hyperbolic and inflammatory comments aren't deluding the fact that the point we are arguing is whether the 2nd amendment gave us the right or defending an inherent right (irrespective of your belief in God). You are trying to twist the point every way you can because you were wrong. The 2nd amendment protects (from the government) our inherent right to defend ourselves, not grant the right.

 

 

 

Look, I don't believe just suddenly taking everyone's guns away is going to solve anything.  I don't really consider myself to be in the pro or anti gun control camp... I just take issue with stupid, ill-informed comments like the one posted above.

 

It's perfectly fine to believe in the 2nd Amendment and to want to a carry a gun.  Indeed, if I lived in America I would probably want to carry a gun too considering many other people do.  I don't necessarily believe that there's a link between decent people carrying weapons and mass shootings.

 

Yes, the Las Vegas shooting is in some respects more unconventional, but it works effectively to demonstrate why you cannot blame victims for being shot.  It's undeniable that had people been carrying guns in Vegas, it would have been much worse.

 

That's why it's not a victim's fault for their choice to carry or not carry a gun.

 

My only issue is with the individual who did blame the victims in this scenario.  All crime is the fault of the perpetrator, and the perpetrator alone.  I'd like to make that clear.

Just now, Kallus Rourke said:

 

Frankly, I could give a shit what a court rules.  There is a reason we call 911 and ask for the police.  We call them because we need them for help, and as we've seen multiple times, part of their job IS helping/rescuing people.  A lot of people have this mindset that just because cops are supposed to protect you that they are gods that can teleport to you.  It's unfortunate when emergency services are unable to get to you right away, but that's part of being human.  Cops can't be everywhere at once.

 

 

 

 

What makes me laugh the most about people that have a gun is that 99% of the time they never use it.  The other 1%? Target practice in the woods.  It's laughable that people get so upset about losing something they never use in the one off chance they may actually have to use it.  Tell me, how many cases are there where a gun owner has successfully intervened and saved someone?  Exactly, not many at all.

There was a recent incident at a church in Nashville where the church usher got a gun and held the suspect down but in all fairness, if the guns weren't so readily avaliable it wouldn't be an issue. People need to get with it. Gun control does not mean banning all guns. I don't want that to happen and neither do most people. Gun control means restricting magazine capacities, closing legal loopholes, doing more background checks....

 

I mean, seriously. What's the big deal in waiting an extra day or two to get a license? The NRA tell people that if we implement gun control then they will not have any guns. In reality, they may have to wait a bit longer and not be able to shoot more than 15 bullets. Please tell me a rational situation where you would need more than 15 bullets. Two bullets is enough to stop most people. It's ridiculous. We are trying to save lives. And if we can't give people the treatment they need then we need to restrict their access to lethal weapons. 

2 minutes ago, Narcissus said:

My whole argument is predicated on the fact that the founders believed that our right to bear arms is an inherent one and not one given by the government. My whole premise of the 2nd amendment is based directly on the words of those who wrote it and why. Your hyperbolic and inflammatory comments aren't deluding the fact that the point we are arguing is whether the 2nd amendment gave us the right or defending an inherent right (irrespective of your belief in God). You are trying to twist the point every way you can because you were wrong. The 2nd amendment protects (from the government) our inherent right to defend ourselves, not grant the right.

With respect, the way I wrote my message was to prove a point. You kept bringing up how it was a god-given right to bear arms in the United States, I used my example proving that it was in fact an opinion of another human being and not god. What I am trying to say is that your reasoning behind having a gun is based on that of a person in the 1700's who could not foresee the future, and to use that as an excuse not to make change is quite silly, and almost concerning. 
 

20 minutes ago, Kallus Rourke said:

 

Frankly, I could give a shit what a court rules.  There is a reason we call 911 and ask for the police.  We call them because we need them for help, and as we've seen multiple times, part of their job IS helping/rescuing people.  A lot of people have this mindset that just because cops are supposed to protect you that they are gods that can teleport to you.  It's unfortunate when emergency services are unable to get to you right away, but that's part of being human.  Cops can't be everywhere at once.

 

 

 

 

What makes me laugh the most about people that have a gun is that 99% of the time they never use it.  The other 1%? Target practice in the woods.  It's laughable that people get so upset about losing something they never use in the one off chance they may actually have to use it.  Tell me, how many cases are there where a gun owner has successfully intervened and saved someone?  Exactly, not many at all.

And statistically speaking, you're more likely to be struck by lightning twice and win the lottery in the same life than be caught in a mass shooting.

 

You want statistics on guns, the most anti-gun presidential administration we ever had (Clinton) had the Department of Justice conduct a study on firearms used to prevent crime. It's conclusion was that guns are used defensively in 1.5 million incidents a year, and that merely brandishing or firing a warning shot was enough to scare off an attacker. Because no one was shot in a vast majority of those cases, a police report isn't filed.

Edited November 6, 20178 yr by c13

6 minutes ago, Kallus Rourke said:

What makes me laugh the most about people that have a gun is that 99% of the time they never use it.  The other 1%? Target practice in the woods.  It's laughable that people get so upset about losing something they never use in the one off chance they may actually have to use it.  Tell me, how many cases are there where a gun owner has successfully intervened and saved someone?  Exactly, not many at all.

 

If you would have used the google, you never would have made the above comment. Just because you don't hear about it on main stream media outlets, doesn't mean it isn't true. Google it. I dare ya.

 

Hundreds of thousands of times a year, armed citizens protect themselves and others. Not in total, which would be fantastic, but each year. Google is your friend.

Just now, Narcissus said:

 

If you would have used the google, you never would have made the above comment. Just because you don't hear about it on main stream media outlets, doesn't mean it isn't true. Google it. I dare ya.

 

Hundreds of thousands of times a year, armed citizens protect themselves and others. Not in total, which would be fantastic, but each year. Google is your friend.

And each year hundreds of people are killed by firearms due to mass shooting incidents. The biggest threat to America is not ISIS, but it's own people. If you ignore the problem, it will only get better. How many more dead until something happens? If the same amount of people who died in 9/11 were killed in a mass shooting I guarantee we'd get a response like "let's not politicise the situation" or "he was mentally ill, mental illness is the problem"

 

Talk about not politicising the situation. Trump, after Vegas: "let's not politicise a tragedy". Comes several hours after it happens

Trump after NY attack "I am ordering DHS to step up our already extreme vetting program!" NOT IN USA!
 

Why can't they have gun laws for the entire country rather than state by state?

Edited November 6, 20178 yr by qwertyK

3 minutes ago, qwertyK said:

I mean, seriously. What's the big deal in waiting an extra day or two to get a license? The NRA tell people that if we implement gun control then they will not have any guns. In reality, they may have to wait a bit longer and not be able to shoot more than 15 bullets. Please tell me a rational situation where you would need more than 15 bullets. Two bullets is enough to stop most people. It's ridiculous. We are trying to save lives. And if we can't give people the treatment they need then we need to restrict their access to lethal weapons. 

The police, which most people tend to consider to be highly trained with firearms, tend to miss 86% of their shots in shootings Fun fact, they're not highly trained. Most do not shoot in their off time, and qualifications are usually only required twice a year, depending on department of course. The most stringent policy I know of is LVMPD's, which requires all officers to qualify with every firearm each month.

 

As for most people being able to be stopped with 2 bullets, that is purely asinine. Every human reacts differently to the same trauma. and a majority of gun shot victims in the US are capable of being saved because of medical care. During this time, they are still capable of fighting. Some cases I like to point out to people:

 

https://www.policeone.com/police-heroes/articles/6199620-Why-one-cop-carries-145-rounds-of-ammo-on-the-job/

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/georgia-mom-shoots-home-intruder-face-article-1.1234400

 

Even more so, when adrenaline flows pain can be completely ignored. I personally know multiple people that have been shot and not realized it until some one pointed it out.

13 minutes ago, Sam said:

 

No, you blamed victims of a shooting for not having a gun with them.

I don't see how that's any different to Vegas.

I am not victim blaming anyone, I am saying that they should of thought of there own personal safety and then maybe there would of been a different outcome.  I never said that it was there fault at all.  But there comes a time where people in this world need to understand that this world has messed up people and everyone needs to understand that.  Stop promoting the victim ideology and start laying the hammer to those who wish to do harm to others.  These tragities should be learning curbs for people, yet all that people do is complain about gun control and sit around asking for Government to do something about it.  The fastest way to curb this is to use the tools at your disposal to fight back against the low life, undesirable, mentality unstable, lunatics.  What is your solution in this foul world to stop people from being victims?  Wait for the cops?  They show up after the crap happens.  Even if this nut job went in with a knife, someone could of used a gun to stop the nut.  I am trying to promote self preservation and make people realize that your life depends on you.  Everyone else wants to rally around the Government and wait for people to do nothing with laws.  

 

So there are your options.

 

Fight back

Maybe die, maybe live

Or sit around and do nothing while this nut job kills everyone.

 

I sir will pick up that gauntlet and hopefully kill or severely injure that man/woman so that others may go home to there family.

 

The cops get called when you loose control of the situation.

Just now, c13 said:

The police, which most people tend to consider to be highly trained with firearms, tend to miss 86% of their shots in shootings Fun fact, they're not highly trained. Most do not shoot in their off time, and qualifications are usually only required twice a year, depending on department of course. The most stringent policy I know of is LVMPD's, which requires all officers to qualify with every firearm each month.

 

As for most people being able to be stopped with 2 bullets, that is purely asinine. Every human reacts differently to the same trauma. and a majority of gun shot victims in the US are capable of being saved because of medical care. During this time, they are still capable of fighting. Some cases I like to point out to people:

 

https://www.policeone.com/police-heroes/articles/6199620-Why-one-cop-carries-145-rounds-of-ammo-on-the-job/

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/georgia-mom-shoots-home-intruder-face-article-1.1234400

 

Even more so, when adrenaline flows pain can be completely ignored. I personally know multiple people that have been shot and not realized it until some one pointed it out.

Then we also have a problem with lacklustre police training (hardly surprising considering the size of the US). I know people react differently but double taps are used all the time and recommended by SF here in the UK. I'm not saying limit guns to 15 bullets, but limit pistols to 10 or 12. and rifles to 15. No one is going to use 30 rounds on a single person.