This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
AndrewG · 22-25, M
lets hear your theory on how to control them. Seems Chicago enacted the most strict gun laws in the nation. Would you like to guess where Chicago ranks in gun deaths. You can enact all the laws you want but until they can control the people using them bad things will happen. I get it every time one of these shootings happen out comes the how do we controls guns.
1-25 of 28
SimplyTracie · 26-30, F
@AndrewG Do you own a gun?
Overly · 41-45, M
@AndrewG The "Chicago this that" argument is the quickest proof I'm looking at an idiot type. Ya know what the "strict" gun laws in IL is? Fill out some forms, wait for your FOID card, get your gun. That's it. It's nothing. It can be done at any store, and takes a fraction of the time a DMV visit takes on a quick day. Oh, and hey, this shooting didn't happen in Chicago! Hey, the Las Vegas shooting... it didn't happen in Chicago! So, if you're this stupid, how stupid to you honestly think everyone else is to bring a really old, prepackaged NRA talking point to a conversation with adults, young man?
But, I can't even blame you. You probably have an idiot parent who feeds you this crap, and now you're here, embarrassing yourself, to defend their viewpoint. A viewpoint you didn't even form on your own, it was HANDED to you. Come back when you have thought about it more than not at all.
But, I can't even blame you. You probably have an idiot parent who feeds you this crap, and now you're here, embarrassing yourself, to defend their viewpoint. A viewpoint you didn't even form on your own, it was HANDED to you. Come back when you have thought about it more than not at all.
OKWTF2 · 51-55, M
@AndrewG It is a good thing Texas is not as strict as Illinois, the neighbor of the church engaged the murderer shooting him and stopping him from killing even more people. If in Illinois, that neighbor might not have been armed, but quite likely, the criminal would still have been.
Overly · 41-45, M
@OKWTF2 See, it's even more embarrassing that you, a guy in his 40s, doesn't understand that guns AREN'T that hard to get in IL. Hey, if I have the money, I can walk into a Walmart or whatever and get a gun no problem. So, your idea that no one would have a gun in IL is idiotic, or you're purposefully lying to push your agenda. You can state which, I don't care. I know you're old enough to just assume you're lying, or beyond help on this.
And yeah, if you think "eveyone should have a gun" is the answer, congrats: your "solution" still ends with 27 Americans dead for no reason! Brilliant plan, that one. Let's see, didn't actually save lives, just adds more guns to the nation, who does this benefit... oh, yeah, the gun manufacturers. Wow, couldn't see that one coming, what a surprise.
And yeah, if you think "eveyone should have a gun" is the answer, congrats: your "solution" still ends with 27 Americans dead for no reason! Brilliant plan, that one. Let's see, didn't actually save lives, just adds more guns to the nation, who does this benefit... oh, yeah, the gun manufacturers. Wow, couldn't see that one coming, what a surprise.
SapphicHeart · F
@AndrewG
A few remarks to your Chicago most strict guns laws. It's been debunked, but is still used by NRA and all the gun supporters.
A few remarks to your Chicago most strict guns laws. It's been debunked, but is still used by NRA and all the gun supporters.
Ban banished
Chicago’s reputation for strict gun laws is rooted in its 1982 ban on handguns. When the U.S. Supreme Court’s District of Columbia vs. Heller decision in 2008 struck down a similar ban in the District of Columbia, Chicago was the only major city left with a blanket handgun prohibition. The distinction didn’t last long.
In 2010, the high court followed up Heller with a ruling in McDonald vs. City of Chicago which nullified Chicago’s ban. At that, the concealed carry of firearms was still outlawed in Chicago as it was throughout all of Illinois.
Two years later, however, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the Illinois concealed carry ban as unconstitutional and the state soon after became the last in the nation to approve concealed carry.
As we noted last year in fact-checking Trump’s Chicago-bashing:
With that, Chicago lost its status -- or its stigma, depending on your perspective -- of having the strictest gun possession laws in the United States. In comparably sized big cities like New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco, the city administers the concealed-carry permitting process. In Illinois, the Illinois State Police processes applications, so it can be argued that Chicago has less autonomy in restricting concealed carry within its borders than do other cities.
We also noted last year that the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which advocates for stricter gun laws, found Illinois’ firearm laws too lenient in several ways, all of which still apply:
Illinois’ gun laws still are considered among the most restrictive when compared with other states. The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which advocates for gun control, gives Illinois a B+ and ranks it No. 8 in the nation on its "Smart Gun Laws" report card. The group lauds Illinois for, among several rules, requiring firearm owners to obtain a Firearm Owners’ ID card that includes a background check and imposes a waiting period on firearm purchases.
But it also knocks Illinois for not requiring registration of firearms, for its lack of restriction on the purchase of multiple firearms and for not allowing local jurisdictions to regulate firearms. In other words, Illinois could make its gun laws much more strict than they are.
Seven states receive higher grades than Illinois in the latest Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence ratings.
Source: http://www.politifact.com/illinois/statements/2017/oct/03/sarah-huckabee-sanders/chicago-toughest-gun-control-claim-shot-full-holes/
Chicago’s reputation for strict gun laws is rooted in its 1982 ban on handguns. When the U.S. Supreme Court’s District of Columbia vs. Heller decision in 2008 struck down a similar ban in the District of Columbia, Chicago was the only major city left with a blanket handgun prohibition. The distinction didn’t last long.
In 2010, the high court followed up Heller with a ruling in McDonald vs. City of Chicago which nullified Chicago’s ban. At that, the concealed carry of firearms was still outlawed in Chicago as it was throughout all of Illinois.
Two years later, however, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the Illinois concealed carry ban as unconstitutional and the state soon after became the last in the nation to approve concealed carry.
As we noted last year in fact-checking Trump’s Chicago-bashing:
With that, Chicago lost its status -- or its stigma, depending on your perspective -- of having the strictest gun possession laws in the United States. In comparably sized big cities like New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco, the city administers the concealed-carry permitting process. In Illinois, the Illinois State Police processes applications, so it can be argued that Chicago has less autonomy in restricting concealed carry within its borders than do other cities.
We also noted last year that the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which advocates for stricter gun laws, found Illinois’ firearm laws too lenient in several ways, all of which still apply:
Illinois’ gun laws still are considered among the most restrictive when compared with other states. The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which advocates for gun control, gives Illinois a B+ and ranks it No. 8 in the nation on its "Smart Gun Laws" report card. The group lauds Illinois for, among several rules, requiring firearm owners to obtain a Firearm Owners’ ID card that includes a background check and imposes a waiting period on firearm purchases.
But it also knocks Illinois for not requiring registration of firearms, for its lack of restriction on the purchase of multiple firearms and for not allowing local jurisdictions to regulate firearms. In other words, Illinois could make its gun laws much more strict than they are.
Seven states receive higher grades than Illinois in the latest Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence ratings.
Source: http://www.politifact.com/illinois/statements/2017/oct/03/sarah-huckabee-sanders/chicago-toughest-gun-control-claim-shot-full-holes/
OKWTF2 · 51-55, M
@Overly You are a complete idiot if you think having a gun, and being trained to use it properly are the same thing. You think some punk ass who buys a walmart gun is going to stand a chance against someone who has proper fire arms training? Bullets are small, adrenaline makes people miss. The police officer who shot the guy in NY hit him once, fired 9 times. The neighbor seemed to know what he was doing, either though military or hunting experience I would imagine and he even pursued the murderer! With out him, you think this murderer was just going to stop? He wouldn't go on? 27 was half the church, he might have gone back in and finished the rest off or continued to the next church or the Valero across the street. The neighbor saved lives, and did so because not only was he armed, HE KNEW HOW TO SHOOT and was not afraid to do so. Oh, and by the way, in Kennesaw, GA where by law the head of the house is required to own a fire arm and ammunition my neighborhood has zero home invasions and few violent crimes. This is not the same as College Park, Stone Mountain and many other suburbs of the Atlanta area as well as the city of Atlanta itself. So Yes I have first had knowledge from living in these areas as well as North Las Vegas and downtown Louisville and many other parts of this nation what a difference the right gun laws combined with effective fire arms training provides for the community. 27 dead is awful, not having a brave soul, the necessary skill and determination to prevent this from being much, much worse is a tragedy.
Overly · 41-45, M
@SapphicHeart Thank you for posting that. This is the kinda thing that people need to be more aware of. Because if the pro-gun side is so ready to lie and spread misinformation, why should we take them at face value on ANY "fact" they present? If they are so quick to slam people for disagreeing with them, but they can't be aware of the actual facts, they're simply counting on others to be also be ill-informed, not actually presenting an argument like adults.
Overly · 41-45, M
@OKWTF2 Sorry I hurt your feelings, sweetheart. If telling you how things actually are upsets you that much, maybe you can find a NRA approved safespace. But see, for me, I'm a lot more offended by the fact that a guy who shouldn't own guns had a gun and killed 27 Americans. Preventing that is a smarter solution than just selling more guns and hoping someone kills the shooter each time. I doubt your plan would have done much to prevent the Las Vegas shooter, right? Come on, unless you get paid to say this stuff, I can't see why you'd continue to embarrass yourself with these half formed opinions, based entirely on your fragile emotions and not on FACTS. You are saying 27 dead Americans is AS GOOD AS TODAY COULD POSSIBLY BE, but the rest of us see ways to prevent this. Ways that will only ever become law if the GOP and any other politicians willing to betray America for NRA money are voted out of office.
Overly · 41-45, M
@OKWTF2 Maybe you should start being in favor of stopping shootings before they start, instead of simply trying to mitigate the amount of murder. If the NRA "every gun owner is a badass hero!" myth was true, I don't think the murderer would have gotten than many innocent people. Not to mention the simple fact that a lot of people, even in Texas, don't bring guns to church.
Ya know... because it's a CHURCH.
Ya know... because it's a CHURCH.
OKWTF2 · 51-55, M
@Overly @Overly hea I am all in favor of someone who shouldn't have a gun not getting one, how is you propose this solution is to be done? not sure why the need to personally insult someone, but what exactly is your theory on how to control guns? Want to come back after you have calm down and answer rather than throw insults like a child?
Maybe start by stop blaming the NRA and politics and provide any intelligent answer to the question? AND, if it were important to Democrats, I believe they had control of both houses and the presidency for a couple years and this was not on their agenda. So why blame one party over the other seems a bit odd. Maybe try to blame Russia or fox news?
Maybe start by stop blaming the NRA and politics and provide any intelligent answer to the question? AND, if it were important to Democrats, I believe they had control of both houses and the presidency for a couple years and this was not on their agenda. So why blame one party over the other seems a bit odd. Maybe try to blame Russia or fox news?
OKWTF2 · 51-55, M
@Overly so where exactly are saying I wrote or implied "you getting me saying 27 dead Americans is as good as today could possibly be?"
I seem to recall pointing out the neighbor being armed, trained and brave had saved lives, not sure why anyone with an ounce of self respect and dignity would interpret that the way you do, but it does say a lot about the character of who you are as a person.
That is repulsive and disgusting. So please, point out what was better by this piece of shit not being engaged and free to continue his murderous rampage over men women and children? since you seem to be taking the position it would have been better for the neighbor to not have been armed, trained and willing to prevent further death you really need to explain yourself because that is and incredibly unpopular position to hold and I am curious as to why anyone would feel that way.
I seem to recall pointing out the neighbor being armed, trained and brave had saved lives, not sure why anyone with an ounce of self respect and dignity would interpret that the way you do, but it does say a lot about the character of who you are as a person.
That is repulsive and disgusting. So please, point out what was better by this piece of shit not being engaged and free to continue his murderous rampage over men women and children? since you seem to be taking the position it would have been better for the neighbor to not have been armed, trained and willing to prevent further death you really need to explain yourself because that is and incredibly unpopular position to hold and I am curious as to why anyone would feel that way.
Overly · 41-45, M
"how is you propose this solution is to be done?" Nationwide database, crosschecked between multiple agencies to prevent future gun purchases by those unfit to have them (like this shooter). Registration of guns in all states, in all sales, from now on, so a clear chain of sales is available to law enforcement at a moment's notice. All of this as state of the art as possible, with paper back ups, and a staff on the state and local levels to make sure it is always upto date.
I blame the NRA and politicians because they keep people stupid and uninformed to sell guns and gain personal profit. You were caught pushing a proven LIE, either due to personal neglect or simply trusting the NRA when they lied TO YOU. Either one is reason enough for me to throw a few personal insults your way. Deal with it.
And the "couple of years" you mention was exactly that, 93-95. Two years into the budding presidency of Bill Clinton and you think they'd.. what? Ban all guns? Fix tons of broken laws without the NRA funded GOP doing everything they can to hold them back? It's silly that it's a partisan issue at all, but it's the GOP that make it one due to their explicit, proven funding from the NRA. I'm supposed to ignore that because it hurts your feelings? Tough. Grow up, you're older than me. Act like it.
I blame the NRA and politicians because they keep people stupid and uninformed to sell guns and gain personal profit. You were caught pushing a proven LIE, either due to personal neglect or simply trusting the NRA when they lied TO YOU. Either one is reason enough for me to throw a few personal insults your way. Deal with it.
And the "couple of years" you mention was exactly that, 93-95. Two years into the budding presidency of Bill Clinton and you think they'd.. what? Ban all guns? Fix tons of broken laws without the NRA funded GOP doing everything they can to hold them back? It's silly that it's a partisan issue at all, but it's the GOP that make it one due to their explicit, proven funding from the NRA. I'm supposed to ignore that because it hurts your feelings? Tough. Grow up, you're older than me. Act like it.
Overly · 41-45, M
@OKWTF2 No, 27 Americans murdered in a house of worship and then written off as "acceptable losses" by you is "repulsive and disgusting". Don't preach at me, when you show a complete lack of morals, compassion and intelligence. You dishonor those people by arguing that their deaths were acceptable because "hey, someone killed the shooter, at least!". Fix the laws, PREVENT killings like this. Or we can just arm everyone and the killer will always get shot... unless he's firing from a hotel window or something. Thankfully no one will do something like that, right?
OKWTF2 · 51-55, M
@OverlySorry, but you are not as well informed as you believe you are, but you did post a reasonable start. Notice you ignored the questions, but do not blame you for that, there is no answer when someone uses their training and firearm to save lives when it will not fit in with your position. Feel free to continue to ignore that. <<<as pointed out, this was written prior to his response, that I answer below>>>
So who is it by the way that believes this person or the vegas shooter would not be permitted to purchase a gun legally? Who is the deciding factor on who is, or not unfit? What agency is to oversee this? Who is going to oversee this agency? Heck it was the Democrats that used the Justice Department and IRS to target organizations and narratives that they didn't agree with, and even if they are as you believe in the NRA's pocket, the GOP has proven to be more trustworthy on several more fronts then the corrupt other party (by the way, I'm Independent, lean Libertarian).
What if for political reasons the neighbor was declined his right to be armed and was among the more then 60 victims instead of the one who stopped it?
There is no easy or short answer to this and your total ignorance to at least try to understand another side of the argument is foolish at best and dangerous at worse.
Maybe after you visited more of the world you will start to understand. I must give you credit though, you are right in that if Texas had the same gun laws as Illinois this very well might not have been the same. But honestly, the amount of training and openness of gun safety as well as many of the fire arm classes and experiences people who are responsible can get should never be dismissed or overlooked as not being extremely important. Certainly that is a law that should always be in place and may go a long way into finding more about a person's fitness before being permitted a firearm? Somehow I see that happening more in Texas then Illinois, but then again, I have not lived in Illinois so I admit I may be wrong on that as well.
and WTF is your problem? Show me ANYWHERE that I said anything about "27 Americans murdered in a house of worship and then written off as "acceptable losses""
I did not, please stop lying.
where did I "arguing that their deaths were acceptable because "hey, someone killed the shooter, at least!"
I did not, stop lying.
I have mentioned the fact that people NOT only have to be armed, but most importantly be TRAINED to use fire arms as being more important. So please do not state my position is "just arm everyone and the killer will always get shot"
I did not say that, you are misrepresenting what I have written, please STOP LYING.
You called me out on Illinois, and rightfully so, I already conceded that earlier, but please stop saying things that have not been stated and drawing conclusions that are ridiculous and completely wrong with what actually was said.
So who is it by the way that believes this person or the vegas shooter would not be permitted to purchase a gun legally? Who is the deciding factor on who is, or not unfit? What agency is to oversee this? Who is going to oversee this agency? Heck it was the Democrats that used the Justice Department and IRS to target organizations and narratives that they didn't agree with, and even if they are as you believe in the NRA's pocket, the GOP has proven to be more trustworthy on several more fronts then the corrupt other party (by the way, I'm Independent, lean Libertarian).
What if for political reasons the neighbor was declined his right to be armed and was among the more then 60 victims instead of the one who stopped it?
There is no easy or short answer to this and your total ignorance to at least try to understand another side of the argument is foolish at best and dangerous at worse.
Maybe after you visited more of the world you will start to understand. I must give you credit though, you are right in that if Texas had the same gun laws as Illinois this very well might not have been the same. But honestly, the amount of training and openness of gun safety as well as many of the fire arm classes and experiences people who are responsible can get should never be dismissed or overlooked as not being extremely important. Certainly that is a law that should always be in place and may go a long way into finding more about a person's fitness before being permitted a firearm? Somehow I see that happening more in Texas then Illinois, but then again, I have not lived in Illinois so I admit I may be wrong on that as well.
and WTF is your problem? Show me ANYWHERE that I said anything about "27 Americans murdered in a house of worship and then written off as "acceptable losses""
I did not, please stop lying.
where did I "arguing that their deaths were acceptable because "hey, someone killed the shooter, at least!"
I did not, stop lying.
I have mentioned the fact that people NOT only have to be armed, but most importantly be TRAINED to use fire arms as being more important. So please do not state my position is "just arm everyone and the killer will always get shot"
I did not say that, you are misrepresenting what I have written, please STOP LYING.
You called me out on Illinois, and rightfully so, I already conceded that earlier, but please stop saying things that have not been stated and drawing conclusions that are ridiculous and completely wrong with what actually was said.
Overly · 41-45, M
@OKWTF2 I skimmed that, and I feel I was smart not to waste time reading it in detail. You claim I didn't answer something, then you make obvious moves to change the topic because you feel you were "beaten" in the topic at hand. This goalpost moving is childish, but expected. You are older than me, I assume you were raised a certain way, and you'll push those beliefs until you die. Even if those beliefs are uninformed and spread misinformation, you'll adhered to them because you can't change. That's fine. I don't care.
geoandrew is comparatively more important. He's young and raised to believe an idiotic lie that "laws don't do anything!". But, if he's reads all this, he knows the Chicago stuff he spewed was a lie that was fed to him, and maybe one days he'll look at other lies that were fed to him by people who profit off of gun violence. Maybe he'll examine information more before spreading it, maybe he'll even question "facts" that are handed to him before taking them to heart. Maybe he'll see your poor argument skills and say "Naw, I don't want to be THAT guy". And if any of that happens, he'll end up a better person, and the world will be a slightly better place.
I'm writing you off and assuming you can't make that journey. Prove me wrong or not, I don't care. Its your life.
geoandrew is comparatively more important. He's young and raised to believe an idiotic lie that "laws don't do anything!". But, if he's reads all this, he knows the Chicago stuff he spewed was a lie that was fed to him, and maybe one days he'll look at other lies that were fed to him by people who profit off of gun violence. Maybe he'll examine information more before spreading it, maybe he'll even question "facts" that are handed to him before taking them to heart. Maybe he'll see your poor argument skills and say "Naw, I don't want to be THAT guy". And if any of that happens, he'll end up a better person, and the world will be a slightly better place.
I'm writing you off and assuming you can't make that journey. Prove me wrong or not, I don't care. Its your life.
OKWTF2 · 51-55, M
@SimplyTracie not sure where you saw me posting anything like that. I do know if someone is committing a home invasion the home owner will die, be beaten or defend themselves. If possible, a fire arm along with proper training will have much more favorable results for the home owner and much less for the criminal than not. The most important part of this horrific scenario is the proper training. Like I said earlier, the NY police officer who likely had some of the best training in the world shot 9 times and only hit the terrorist once. In this particular set of circumstances it does seem unlikely the neighbor hearing three dozen gunshots, people lying, bleeding outside the church and a person standing at the entrance with a rifle didn't have to stretch that he killed someone, and unless he acted, would continue to do so.
SimplyTracie · 26-30, F
You imply that shooting a suspect is fine. Giving civilians guns isn’t the answer. Taking guns away from lunatics is way more sane.
I’ve even read about police shooting innocent bystanders so you having and playing with guns is even crazier.
Having stiffer penalties for illegal possession may help too.
I’ve even read about police shooting innocent bystanders so you having and playing with guns is even crazier.
Having stiffer penalties for illegal possession may help too.
OKWTF2 · 51-55, M
@Overly yes, I started by saying you didn't answer me, but after posting, saw you did so I re-edit it. Sadly you were not truthful in your answers.
I apologize if it was too complicated or long for you to patiently read. When you feel the mood, please do because you are really not representing your self clearly. You seem like an intelligent if suborn person. It is good to be done with me because you are somehow under the impression that I stated 27 dead is a good thing or best thing, or not bad in some way. Crap that any reasonable person would know is not true and nobody with half a brain would think that and honestly, only someone with half a brain would accuse someone of that. To do so is just plain evil and if you do not see how/why that would be called evil I will pray for you that someday you will. I have never met anyone as vile as that, and this is your position? I do not believe it.
I instead was stating the clear fact that an armed, trained person did not become the 28th. It is inconvenient for people with your narrative to accept things like that for some reason.
So, if I were to use YOUR logic, the neighbor should NOT have been armed, the criminal should have shot, possibly killed him, maybe gone back into the church to finish off the wounded, or gone across the street to the gas station killing everyone in there. Then drove away to his next victims.
By your logic, since this is the opposite of what I have been saying, This is what you are saying, that killing 27 was not enough for you to complete your complaints about gun laws!
Do you see how stupid that sounds? Of course that is no one's thoughts, so why in God's green earth would you misrepresent what I have said in such a vile manner? You state such outrageous statements that you know very well are not true and accuse me of not being intelligent, grown up or capable of reasonable debate?
Really?
A smart person does not do this, they engage in reasonable debate and you have potential if you do not get side tracked in things that everyone knows is not true.
You want to argue facts, and can do so effectively if you do not start telling lies yourself.
I did start out with a bad comparison that Texas and Illinois gun laws were different. They of course are, but not in a significant enough way. For some unknown reason you decided that everything else is irrelevant and evil.
You may make a good Congressman or CNN reporter some day.
I apologize if it was too complicated or long for you to patiently read. When you feel the mood, please do because you are really not representing your self clearly. You seem like an intelligent if suborn person. It is good to be done with me because you are somehow under the impression that I stated 27 dead is a good thing or best thing, or not bad in some way. Crap that any reasonable person would know is not true and nobody with half a brain would think that and honestly, only someone with half a brain would accuse someone of that. To do so is just plain evil and if you do not see how/why that would be called evil I will pray for you that someday you will. I have never met anyone as vile as that, and this is your position? I do not believe it.
I instead was stating the clear fact that an armed, trained person did not become the 28th. It is inconvenient for people with your narrative to accept things like that for some reason.
So, if I were to use YOUR logic, the neighbor should NOT have been armed, the criminal should have shot, possibly killed him, maybe gone back into the church to finish off the wounded, or gone across the street to the gas station killing everyone in there. Then drove away to his next victims.
By your logic, since this is the opposite of what I have been saying, This is what you are saying, that killing 27 was not enough for you to complete your complaints about gun laws!
Do you see how stupid that sounds? Of course that is no one's thoughts, so why in God's green earth would you misrepresent what I have said in such a vile manner? You state such outrageous statements that you know very well are not true and accuse me of not being intelligent, grown up or capable of reasonable debate?
Really?
A smart person does not do this, they engage in reasonable debate and you have potential if you do not get side tracked in things that everyone knows is not true.
You want to argue facts, and can do so effectively if you do not start telling lies yourself.
I did start out with a bad comparison that Texas and Illinois gun laws were different. They of course are, but not in a significant enough way. For some unknown reason you decided that everything else is irrelevant and evil.
You may make a good Congressman or CNN reporter some day.
OKWTF2 · 51-55, M
@SimplyTracie suspect, no, never once said that. shooting someone that is attacking innocent men woman and children I will not apologize for not having any problem with that. I have real knowledge of the cost of being a victim of a violent crime and anyway that can be stopped, even with a fire arm, I am in favor of and will not apologize for that either.
Given civilians guns is NOT the solution, I did not mean for that to be the solution I was proposing, but when someone does stop it, this fact is not with out significance, or at least shouldn't be. I am more in favor of better training. I also believe with proper training instructors will have better knowledge and assist in preventing the wrong people getting license. I would not trust any organization the government sets up to decide this factor, they are not good at these things, but sadly it will at least be oversight by some form of government hopefully will not get as corrupted either way.
Police do shoot the wrong people. Actually the best answer I have heard from that may be to take away the shield laws. If a person knows they will be sued and loose their job, house and pension on a bad shoot maybe less lethal methods will be in place.
Here in Atlanta at Georgia Tech a disturb young man committed suicide by cop. The issue is, the campus police did not have a non-lethal way of taking the teenager down. How the heck does a university police force not have a taser or some non-lethal way to prevent that tragedy? Not to get off topic, but wanted to mention that because it happened when talking with the person who mentioned taking away the shield laws and to me will always be connected. I know far more police than criminals at this point in my life and all of them are very honorable people, but I am in full agreement that doing nothing on different aspects concerning fire arms is not an answer either.
Given civilians guns is NOT the solution, I did not mean for that to be the solution I was proposing, but when someone does stop it, this fact is not with out significance, or at least shouldn't be. I am more in favor of better training. I also believe with proper training instructors will have better knowledge and assist in preventing the wrong people getting license. I would not trust any organization the government sets up to decide this factor, they are not good at these things, but sadly it will at least be oversight by some form of government hopefully will not get as corrupted either way.
Police do shoot the wrong people. Actually the best answer I have heard from that may be to take away the shield laws. If a person knows they will be sued and loose their job, house and pension on a bad shoot maybe less lethal methods will be in place.
Here in Atlanta at Georgia Tech a disturb young man committed suicide by cop. The issue is, the campus police did not have a non-lethal way of taking the teenager down. How the heck does a university police force not have a taser or some non-lethal way to prevent that tragedy? Not to get off topic, but wanted to mention that because it happened when talking with the person who mentioned taking away the shield laws and to me will always be connected. I know far more police than criminals at this point in my life and all of them are very honorable people, but I am in full agreement that doing nothing on different aspects concerning fire arms is not an answer either.
1-25 of 28