First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next  Last
Gun Free Zone
17179 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
(´◔౪◔)✂❤
Offline
Posted 8/25/13 , edited 8/26/13
anyone with a concealed weapons permit from entering. That doesn't mean the owner of that shop doesn't have guns. It probably means that people coming into the stores are "gun free" (thought I might be reading this wrong) Anyone else bringing a gun probably has no motive than robbing the place, in those cases the shop owner can reprimand them.

On another note, protecting students from nut jobs by arming teachers who are probably equally as crazy is not the most ingenious idea in comparison
31059 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Los Angeles, CA
Offline
Posted 8/25/13

AniMatsuri wrote:


bensonc120 wrote:

I laugh every time I hear this argument A few red necks with guns won't do anything to stop our military in the event our government turn rogue.


How do you know its just a few? Just "a few" armed crazies have held off world armies for centuries in Afghanistan. At any rate, an unarmed population is easier to control than one that is.


Our military went to Afghanistan and just rolled through them. There were no questions on what the outcome would be at any time, as far as the actual fighting. Post-war affairs is another story but that is for another discussion. Armed citizens have no chance against our military, guns alones can not match up against tanks, helicopters, jets, drones, satellite, etc. There is 0% chance that armed citizens can win.

As far as controlling the population, I would argue that an uninformed population is much easier to control than an unarmed population.
34907 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
51 / M / Hawai'i
Offline
Posted 8/25/13

bensonc120 wrote:

Our military went to Afghanistan and just rolled through them. There were no questions on what the outcome would be at any time, as far as the actual fighting. Post-war affairs is another story but that is for another discussion. Armed citizens have no chance against our military, guns alones can not match up against tanks, helicopters, jets, drones, satellite, etc. There is 0% chance that armed citizens can win.

As far as controlling the population, I would argue that an uninformed population is much easier to control than an unarmed population.


The USSR rolled into Afghanistan but couldn't control it. If you have been paying attention to reports the Taliban is alive and well and our military is having a trouble controlling them to this day. Armed citizens can cause the government years and years of pain. Why not make it easy and pass laws to disarmed them?

Optimally then the easiest to control population is one that is both uniformed and unarmed.
31071 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Detroit
Offline
Posted 8/25/13

Reploid520 wrote:


MurdahG wrote:

Actually this is a move to stop incidents of gun violence among patrons due to testosterone fueled rage. Which is far more likely than being robbed.


hahaha...seriously?


yes assault is much more common than armed robbery....this whole gun issue has been spinned by the machine that ignores that fact.
31071 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Detroit
Offline
Posted 8/25/13 , edited 8/25/13

AniMatsuri wrote:


bensonc120 wrote:

Our military went to Afghanistan and just rolled through them. There were no questions on what the outcome would be at any time, as far as the actual fighting. Post-war affairs is another story but that is for another discussion. Armed citizens have no chance against our military, guns alones can not match up against tanks, helicopters, jets, drones, satellite, etc. There is 0% chance that armed citizens can win.

As far as controlling the population, I would argue that an uninformed population is much easier to control than an unarmed population.


The USSR rolled into Afghanistan but couldn't control it. If you have been paying attention to reports the Taliban is alive and well and our military is having a trouble controlling them to this day. Armed citizens can cause the government years and years of pain. Why not make it easy and pass laws to disarmed them?

Optimally then the easiest to control population is one that is both uniformed and unarmed.


The USSR didn't have drones and missiles specially made to blow up caves and cause widespread destruction either. The Taliban is almost a non-factor anymore. They can only do so much with ak47's and RPGs. The US government will not EVER turn on its citizens in some orwellian fantasy type of way where we all fear being massacred for loving a woman. The rest of the world would love to destroy such a government with as many debts and feuds as we have. Only thing saving us in a time of real crisis like that would be a coalition of supporters with REAL weapons. Not cheap armalite rifles and handguns.
67201 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Bonne Lake, WA
Offline
Posted 8/25/13

dougeprofile wrote:

The mayor of Seattle is working with local businesses to declare themselves gun free zones, each store would place a sticker in the window banning anyone with a concealed weapons permit from entering. The question is: What criminal is going to read that sign and decide to go rob a store where guns are allowed? Perpetrators of mass shootings have specifically targeted gun free zones. When was the last time someone tried shooting up an NRA convention?


First, please give us detailed statistics on how often mass shootings happen, then a reliable number on where statistically they will happen. I can guarantee that you will find whether there are guns or not is not a consideration of person about to go on a shooting rampage.

Second, please tell me how you are supposed to tell someone they can't come into a shop with their concealed weapon.


This whole idea that if there is a declared gun free zone it will instantly be a target of crime, and that you will stop a responsible person with a concealed firearm is rather silly. The whole idea of having a concealed weapons permit is so that no one knows you have the effing thing on you in the first place. It is not banning people simply for having a gun permit. That would be banning a large proportion of the population.

Every store is owned by someone, and it is their private property. They have a constitutional right to declare that you cannot bring weapons into their establishment. How would you feel if I walked into your house with a gun? you'd shoot me, right?

If you are concealing your weapon like your concealed weapons permit is intended, no one will ever know you have a weapon to begin with, and there is not issue. If you wear it on your belt like a dumbass where anyone can see / grab it, then yes, you will be kicked out of a few places for being a dipshit and disrespecting the owners.

As far as what mass shooters generally target: It's going to be a point of annoyance or frustration to the shooter. a stress point. Often times this happens at schools or work places, and even in families. The movie theatre shooting is a great example of one of the few truly random mass shootings perpetrated by a truly deranged and mentally unstable individual.


So, for my points:

You made several assumptions about mass shooters that can not be statistically proven, but stated them as statistical fact.
You used a similarly random example (when the last time an NRA convention had a shooting) that has no statistical value, as I don't recall there being a mass shooting at a convention ever.
You are telling people that anyone holding a concealed weapons permit is not allowed into a building. This is not true, nor will people be checking for concealed weapons OR permits for concealed weapons at the door.


If you are properly using your concealed weapons permit, no one will know you have a gun. If people know you have a gun, you are doing it wrong / making yourself a giant ass target.
You are actively attacking vendors who are not comfortable with people carrying weapons openly in their restaurant. No offense, but I don't feel comfortable with people openly carrying guns around in public. Again, makes them a target or a shooter, not a hero.
It takes a good deal of training to use a weapon in a public place safely. Police, who are put in these situations more often than most, even have a hard time making these judgement calls. A recent case in Seattle was the bus shooting where the police opened fire on an armed man on a bus. It drew scrutiny, but the end result was that no one but the shooter died, so nothing came of it.

Lots of hot air over nothing imo.
18329 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / Jolly ol' Blighty
Offline
Posted 8/25/13 , edited 8/25/13
I live in a country that guns are illegal for all, bar on duty solders and particular police units, this hasn't stopped gun crime here so any 'gun free zones' are clearly not worth the paper the law is written on.
35140 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
42 / M
Offline
Posted 8/25/13

Luchsen wrote:

So, every country should have nuclear weapons because: Who wouldn't nuke the ones that don't? Yeah, we know where this led to.

Please excuse the hyperbole, you aren't better.


You're forgetting that nearly all the non-nuclear-armed nations have treaties with the nations that are nuclear-armed, securing their own protection through the threat of mutually-assured destruction.
5021 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / M
Offline
Posted 8/25/13
These are the facts, you can not deny people the right to defend themselves, ever. Self preservation is a driving force in most living organisms, and humans fall into that category of beings that usually place a high importance on life, and the ability to defend ones own life.

If you don't trust the link, just search 3-D printing on Youtube. There's much to be said about 3-D printing and how it will impact the world, but I won't digress there as this was started for a gun issue. The fact is however, that with the advent of 3-D printing technology, whether or not people have access to firearms is a non-issue, anyone who wants to get one will be able to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DconsfGsXyA

All that said, I am not pro-gun per se. I find them to be clumsy, obsolete weapons, which commonly inflict casualties upon non-targets. They also are incapable of of consistently incapacitating an enemy as opposed to killing.

If the goal is an end to gun violence, create a weapon which makes guns seem as obsolete to everyone else as they do to me. The next generation of self defense technology does not lie on the path of greater killing power, but precision, and the ability to more efficiently achieve your aim, be that kill, or simply disarm and defeat.
34907 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
51 / M / Hawai'i
Offline
Posted 8/25/13 , edited 8/25/13

MurdahG wrote:

The USSR didn't have drones and missiles specially made to blow up caves and cause widespread destruction either. The Taliban is almost a non-factor anymore. They can only do so much with ak47's and RPGs. The US government will not EVER turn on its citizens in some orwellian fantasy type of way where we all fear being massacred for loving a woman. The rest of the world would love to destroy such a government with as many debts and feuds as we have. Only thing saving us in a time of real crisis like that would be a coalition of supporters with REAL weapons. Not cheap armalite rifles and handguns.


The Taliban is such a non-factor that we're still trying to encourage them to make a treaty with the main government? We already have the TSA harassing us at airports and soon to be other places and the NSA spying on us in some cases whether we have anything to do terrorists or not, who's to say what the next step might be?
16095 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Lake Elsinore, CA
Offline
Posted 8/25/13
Dragon
58342 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / M
Online
Posted 8/25/13


*its

Also, he never actually said that. The closest he talked about was to disarm already subjugated regions/races, not to disarm citizens for the rise of Nazi (or any) power - http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/disarm.asp
26833 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / Texas
Offline
Posted 8/25/13 , edited 8/25/13
This is what happens when your town is run by Socialist Hippies. Unfortunately criminals don't give a crap about laws....that's why they're called criminals.
33078 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 8/25/13

Tankfantry wrote:

This is what happens when your town is run by Socialist Hippies. Unfortunately criminals down give a crap about laws....that's why they're called criminals.


Yeah that's the thing, if you make laws that only law-abiding people are going to obey, and it tells those law abiding people to disarm, it's only logical to assume that criminals will take advantage of that, because they don't care about laws.

I'm all for the 2nd Amendment in the US (where I live), as long as it's not out of control in the way it's applied. Sure I don't personally own a gun (anymore) even though I was in the Army for 6 years (where you usually have your own personal rifle, mine was an M16A2) because in a reasonably safe neighborhood, you're more likely to shoot yourself or a family member / friend than an intruder, but I can see where a concealed weapon might be a necessity.

Gun control's a good idea, but I'd like to see laws that are more sensible and realistic rather than ones that only make law abiding people more vulnerable to those who don't obey laws.
592 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
55 / M / Between the devil...
Offline
Posted 8/25/13 , edited 8/25/13
Putting as "Gun-Free-Zone" appilque to the door of a store is an open invitation to be robbed at any time of any day., LOUSY idea!!! And this coming from someone who has been robbed at gunpoint.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.