eleven people died and six people injured at the Tree of Life Synagogue Shootout in Pittsburgh. Police arrested the 46 years old Suspect Robert Bowers. Trump said: If there was an armed guard inside the temple, they would have been able to stop him 
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/10/27/politics/trump-jba-death-penalty-pittsburgh/index.html
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/oct/27/pittsburgh-synagogue-shooting
 

2 hours ago, Officer GILLETTE ABDI said:

 Trump said: If there was an armed guard inside the temple, they would have been able to stop him

 

Sigh Here we go again with this stupid discussion.  Let me lay it out for everyone before this turns into another pointless 5 page+ debate.

 

We don't know if an armed guard would've made a difference or not!  Just because someone has a gun does not mean they are automatically going to be a super hero and stop the situation from escalating. Yes, maybe the guard would've had the proper training, but there is a HUGE difference between training and real life.  MANY people freeze up in emergency situations and/or become panicked.  A gun does not make someone have a spine of steel, we are still human beings who can be frightened/scared/startled. Yes, believe it or not folks, someone with a gun is capable of being scared, which may result in an even worse situation.

 

The way Trump said it felt like he just blamed the victims for not having protection, instead of putting the blame on yet another psycho. It's sickening.

Edited October 28, 20187 yr by Hystery

Dont know whats wrong with this guy who created this topic.You only make a thread when a shooting or something bad happens.Why so Sensationalism.But lets dont forget that people who does shit like this arent human.No religion should feel that pain.WE ALL ARE HUMANS

Edited October 28, 20187 yr by Maurice97

12 hours ago, Giordano said:

 

Sigh Here we go again with this stupid discussion.  Let me lay it out for everyone before this turns into another pointless 5 page+ debate.

 

We don't know if an armed guard would've made a difference or not!  Just because someone has a gun does not mean they are automatically going to be a super hero and stop the situation from escalating. Yes, maybe the guard would've had the proper training, but there is a HUGE difference between training and real life.  MANY people freeze up in emergency situations and/or become panicked.  A gun does not make someone have a spine of steel, we are still human beings who can be frightened/scared/startled. Yes, believe it or not folks, someone with a gun is capable of being scared, which may result in an even worse situation.

 

Because no one has ever prevented a mass shooting, bad people with guns are all powerful deitys and guns are instantly useless in the hands of potential victims.

Edited October 28, 20187 yr by c13

29 minutes ago, c13 said:

Because no one has ever prevented a mass shooting, bad people with guns are all powerful deitys and guns are instantly useless in the hands of potential victims.

 

Because having an armed, trained guard does not mean 100% fullproof against this kind of incident.

Three police officers were shot. Armed guards are not enough.

2 minutes ago, Hystery said:

 

Because having an armed, trained guard does not mean 100% fullproof against this kind of incident.

 

Just now, Riley24 said:

Three police officers were shot. Armed guards are not enough.

Implying that because something doesn't work 100% of the time it's not worth doing.

14 minutes ago, c13 said:

 

Implying that because something doesn't work 100% of the time it's not worth doing.

 

No, implying that if it's not working 100% of the time, then it's not a miracle solution and doing what Mister Orange said won't prevent those things from happening like he likes to think and say. It's just the easy way to deal with it. "Oh yeah, put armed guards everywhere". Maybe there are other possibilities to deal with the issue before resorting to that. Like, I don't know, having decent intel. The guy was known on extreme-right social networks for saying "death to all jews" and lots of conspiracy theories. This kind of people should be investigated. Knowing they have the eye of the law over their head would already be a deterrent to some.

 

And again, the way he said it, just sounded like he blamed the victims for not having protection rather than putting the blame on the psycho who shot them. You just don't do that. But Trump is a pro at victim-shaming.

Edited October 28, 20187 yr by Hystery

4 minutes ago, Hystery said:

 

No, implying that if it's not working 100% of the time working, then it's not a miracle solution and doing what Mister Orange said won't prevent those things from happening like he likes to think and say. It's just the easy way to deal with it. "Oh yeah, put armed guards everywhere". Maybe there are other possibilities to deal with the issue before resorting to that. Like, I don't know, having decent intel. The guy was known on extreme-right social networks for saying "death to all jews" and lots of conspiracy theories. This kind of people should be investigated. Knowing they have the eye of the law over their head would already be a deterrent to some.

So what happens every time someone shoots people? More people show up with guns to arrest/kill that person. Wouldn't it improve the chances of survival if there is already someone with a gun prestaged?

 

Additionally, knowing that there is armed security is often a deterrent. James Holmes had multiple theaters with larger seating capacity closer to his apartment, but they were not gun free zones.

 

BTW, I find it funny that you're complaining about racism and making fun of someone for being "orange" in the same post.

40 minutes ago, c13 said:

So what happens every time someone shoots people? More people show up with guns to arrest/kill that person. Wouldn't it improve the chances of survival if there is already someone with a gun prestaged?

 

Additionally, knowing that there is armed security is often a deterrent. James Holmes had multiple theaters with larger seating capacity closer to his apartment, but they were not gun free zones.

 

BTW, I find it funny that you're complaining about racism and making fun of someone for being "orange" in the same post.

Three cops got injured... surely it would be better to think of a solution which has the chance of stopping this ahead of time? I mean, it's all good saying every religious place in America needs armed guards but I highly doubt local law enforcement departments are going to send their valuable manpower to every religious building in their jurisdiction on the off-chance it is involved in a shooting, so these guards are coming from somewhere else - who is going to pay for them, how trained are they going to be.

It's all good saying that everyone will be safer with more armed guards, yet all I see is poor response to an issue which happens somewhat reguarly in the United States - don't get me wrong, I don't say I know the answer but surely putting the money into finding a more logical, safer and sustainable solution is better than just throwing more likely poorly trained rent-a-cops into the line of fire.

12 minutes ago, Ben said:

Three cops got injured... surely it would be better to think of a solution which has the chance of stopping this ahead of time? I mean, it's all good saying every religious place in America needs armed guards but I highly doubt local law enforcement departments are going to send their valuable manpower to every religious building in their jurisdiction on the off-chance it is involved in a shooting, so these guards are coming from somewhere else - who is going to pay for them, how trained are they going to be.

It's all good saying that everyone will be safer with more armed guards, yet all I see is poor response to an issue which happens somewhat reguarly in the United States - don't get me wrong, I don't say I know the answer but surely putting the money into finding a more logical, safer and sustainable solution is better than just throwing more likely poorly trained rent-a-cops into the line of fire.

i find it funny that most everyone that is for gun control on this "free" website are from countries with strict gun laws and yet have high crime, hows the poor police response working out for you guys in the uk and france?

1 minute ago, J T said:

i find it funny that most everyone that is for gun control on this "free" website are from countries with strict gun laws and yet have high crime, hows the poor police response working out for you guys in the uk and france?

I find it funny that you seem to spend all day attempting to fire shots yet not making a point, I didn't say gun control was what was needed, and you'd know this if you read my post, so I am just going to gather that you didn't. I know that when Armed Police respond here, they are the very best trained in the world, I feel safe knowing that, so it works out incredibily well for me and I am sure the people from France would also agree.

So are you going to actually contribute to the discussion or just attempt to trigger people with off-topic jibes, and yes I can see the hidden posts where you went out of your way to be rude and offensive.

35 minutes ago, Ben said:

Three cops got injured... surely it would be better to think of a solution which has the chance of stopping this ahead of time? I mean, it's all good saying every religious place in America needs armed guards but I highly doubt local law enforcement departments are going to send their valuable manpower to every religious building in their jurisdiction on the off-chance it is involved in a shooting, so these guards are coming from somewhere else - who is going to pay for them, how trained are they going to be.

It's all good saying that everyone will be safer with more armed guards, yet all I see is poor response to an issue which happens somewhat reguarly in the United States - don't get me wrong, I don't say I know the answer but surely putting the money into finding a more logical, safer and sustainable solution is better than just throwing more likely poorly trained rent-a-cops into the line of fire.

Statistically speaking, a vast majority of mass shooters, attempted or successful ones, give up or kill themselves upon being confronted by someone with a gun. At the absolute worst case scenario once a good guy with a gun enters the picture, the focus is taken away from taking out defenseless people and engaging the other armed party.

 

Obviously it's not realistic to put officers at every religious institution, and many won't have the funding for armed guards, but it is realistic that there are many people who have concealed carry permits who would be willing to act in such an event, should the location not be a gun free zone.

 

Mass shootings are also fairly rare comparatively. While such events are much more common in the United States than other developed nations, you would still be more likely to win the lottery and be struck by lightning in your lifetime than to be caught in one.

 

At the end of the day, regardless of where you are at, you are the primary one responsible for your own safety.

 

 

Edited October 28, 20187 yr by c13

31 minutes ago, Ben said:

I find it funny that you seem to spend all day attempting to fire shots yet not making a point, I didn't say gun control was what was needed, and you'd know this if you read my post, so I am just going to gather that you didn't. I know that when Armed Police respond here, they are the very best trained in the world, I feel safe knowing that, so it works out incredibily well for me and I am sure the people from France would also agree.

So are you going to actually contribute to the discussion or just attempt to trigger people with off-topic jibes, and yes I can see the hidden posts where you went out of your way to be rude and offensive.

i find it funny this website promotes free and open discussions yet if a post doesnt agree with your distorted world views they get deleted and i wasnt rude and dont put words into my mouth, gio is the one being rude and making up conspiracy theories and attempting to start a flame war with his baseless rant, i was just pointing out how the media never reports on the real issues, only ones that fit there agenda of gun control which seems to be working in this case as this topic got created right after it happened, playing people like a violin, as for contributing, if people are armed like they are in texas then these sort of things wouldnt happen, they certainly dont happen nearly as often in that state compared to strict gun law states like ct, ny,chicago,cali, ny just to name a few and these events are getting so predictable always in a gun free zone and always being hyped up to influence peoples opinion......if i live in a state like texas with loose gun laws then i feel safe, if i live in a state such illinois and the city of chicago with strict gun laws and high murder rate i dont feel safe.....do you understand now?

Just now, J T said:

i find it funny this website promotes free and open discussions yet if a post doesnt agree with your distorted world views they get deleted and i wasnt rude and dont put words into my mouth, gio is the one being rude and making up conspiracy theories and attempting to start a flame war with his baseless rant, i was just pointing out how the media never reports on the real issues, only ones that fit there agenda of gun control which seems to be working in this case as this topic got created right after it happened, playing people like a violin, as for contributing, if people are armed like they are in texas then these sort of things wouldnt happen, they certainly dont happen nearly as often in that state compared to strict gun law states like ct, ny,chicago,cali, ny just to name a few and these events are getting so predictable always in a gun free zone and always being hyped up to influence peoples opinion......if i live in a state like texas with loose gun laws then i feel safe, if i live in a state such illinois and the city of chicago with strict gun laws and high murder rate i dont feel safe.....do you understand now?

We do allow free and open discussions, but that does not mean you get to go out of your way to be offensive. If you wish to partake in debate you are aloud to do that, we won't however let you unnecessarily go out of your way to make pathetic jibs at both people and cities, it doesn't contribute to the debate and instead ends up derailing it. You have been on this site long enough, you should be very aware of the kind of behaviour we allow and the kind we won't.

If you want to respond to my original post with a response which is on-topic and not randomly bringing up gun control when I never spoke a word about it I am fine with that, if you want to continue this discussion on what you can and can't say, feel free to send me message.

2 hours ago, c13 said:

So what happens every time someone shoots people? More people show up with guns to arrest/kill that person. Wouldn't it improve the chances of survival if there is already someone with a gun prestaged?

 

Additionally, knowing that there is armed security is often a deterrent. James Holmes had multiple theaters with larger seating capacity closer to his apartment, but they were not gun free zones.

 

BTW, I find it funny that you're complaining about racism and making fun of someone for being "orange" in the same post.

 

Perhaps with the current state of affairs it is necessary to have armed protection in these places, but isn't that just a really sad reflection of how things have become?  Why is it possible for someone like this to perpetrate such a massacre?  I can't think of any reason whatsoever why someone who is in such a state of mind should be allowed anywhere near a pistol, never mind an AR-15.  It's just something that shouldn't happen.

 

Honestly, if you keep focusing solely on increasing protection and increasing security, how far does this go?  Is it going to get to a point where there are armed checkpoints on every major intersection?

 

How can it be a partisan issue to stop lunatics from shooting at innocent people with rifles?

 

And no, I hate to say it, but you're wrong.  Making fun of a politician for being "orange" - i.e. them choosing to apply fake tan - is entirely different to being racist.  You can choose whether or not to wear fake tan or whatever else.  You don't exactly choose the colour of your skin, though.

As a Jew and an Israeli-American this is awful. Yisrael chai 

10 hours ago, c13 said:

 

Implying that because something doesn't work 100% of the time it's not worth doing.

Yeah, just like stronger gun control.

7 minutes ago, Riley24 said:

Yeah, just like stronger gun control.

We've been over this many times. Of the difficulties of enforcing gun laws in the US as compared to islands. Of the difficulties of rounding up all the guns. Of the difficulties of getting criminals to obey the law, and how they will see it as an opportunity to take advantage of a defenseless population.

 

We've talked about how guns are an equalizer. How women and the elderly are most likely unable to fight off a single criminal without one. Of how you are more likely to be attacked by multiple people than caught in a mass shooting.

 

We've talked about how the primary firearms used in crimes are handguns, as they are concealable, cheap and there's no real con to ditching them. How rifles are used in less than 400 murders a year, and that doesn't specify the style of those rifles.

 

We've talked about how crime is dropping and has been dropping for decades, while simultaneously there are more guns in civilian hands than ever before in the US. How despite every state having a concealed carry permit system, and some states not even requiring permits to carry concealed, it's not the wild west gun control advocates screamed it would be.

 

We've talked about areas with some of the strictest gun control having some of the highest murder rates. How a majority of mass shootings occur in gun free zones. How a majority of shooters give up or kill themselves upon facing armed opposition.

 

We've talked about the difficulty of requiring background checks for everyone. How the gun show loophole is a myth. How the ATF said a national registry would be required to enforce it. We've even talked about how a majority of mass shooters passed a background check or acquired their guns through illegal means.

 

We've talked about the fact that not everyone lives in a city, and there are many places in the US where police can be hours away.

 

What are you trying to accomplish with that statement?