The Attack on the 2nd Amendment Continues

[TUCKnTRUCK]

Dumb answer. That's like saying too bad that cop at the gas station in TX filling his car never shot back, and he had a gun? That officer had 15 holes full of lead pumped in his back.

I've said it time and time again, some of the gun totin individuals who think they'd be Tom Cruise in any situation, newsflash....... in a random and rapidly-escalating active shooter situation, 90% are gonna be unprepared even carrying a gun. They don't have the proper training to properly deal with an active shooter situation.

Dumb answer. There is plenty of case and evidence that shows an armed responder can alter or stop an attack.

I'd like to see something to back up your second paragraph.

Anyways... https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...civilians-stopped-such-mass-shootings-before/

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

If it was your father and son dead in that dealership, some of you would tread differently. Many would still hold their ground, but then again they physically didn't lose their father and son in a mass shooting.

 

[Lawman]

If it was your father and son dead in that dealership, some of you would tread differently. Many would still hold their ground, but then again they physically didn't lose their father and son in a mass shooting.

Why don't you go tell this woman how she should feel after she watched her parents gunned down in what remains to this day the 3rd deadliest mass shooting in this country... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzanna_Hupp

considering the number of times she has appeared before congress to protest the disarmament of private citizens I think she would probably call you an idiot for trying to play off some sort of sob story instead of statistics.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

Why don't you go tell this woman how she should feel after she watched her parents gunned down in what remains to this day the 3rd deadliest mass shooting in this country... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzanna_Hupp

considering the number of times she has appeared before congress to protest the disarmament of private citizens I think she would probably call you an idiot for trying to play off some sort of sob story instead of statistics.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I never said you shouldn't carry concealed.

Or are you implying this Michigan shooter was a concealed carry guy who decided to go on a shooting spree?

 

[Lawman]

I never said you shouldn't carry concealed.

Or are you implying this Michigan shooter was a concealed carry guy who decided to go on a shooting spree?

You call for Australia's methods of gun control and parrot that New Jersey is a shining example of how things should be.

That effectively bans concealed carry for all us Surfs.

Not to mention parroting the ridiculous idea that the military and police receive some sort of "superior" firearms training.

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

You call for Australia's methods of gun control and parrot that New Jersey is a shining example of how things should be.

That effectively bans concealed carry for all us Surfs.

Not to mention parroting the ridiculous idea that the military and police receive some sort of "superior" firearms training.

I'm ok with conceal carrying as long as there is actually some real training involved with it. Not just a 4 hr safety course and a joke written test. Or worse, no requirements at all as in a couple states.

 

[Lawman]

I'm ok with conceal carrying as long as there is actually some real training involved with it. Not just a 4 hr safety course and a joke written test. Or worse, no requirements at all as in a couple states.

You are talking around in circles inside your butt again.

You can't be for Australia's solution to the so called "gun problem" and then try and say you are ok with civilian concealed carry since it doesn't exist in that country, then again neither does any real form of handgun ownership in that country.

 

[z987k]

I'm ok with conceal carrying as long as there is actually some real training involved with it. Not just a 4 hr safety course and a joke written test. Or worse, no requirements at all as in a couple states.

We do just fine with no requirement at all.
Our problem is the drug violence. Which generally included shootings, but have nothing to do with legal firearms. And they generally shoot each other so.....
It far more a socioeconomic problem than a gun problem.

 

[Lawman]

We do just fine with no requirement at all.
Our problem is the drug violence. Which generally included shootings, but have nothing to do with legal firearms. And they generally shoot each other so.....
It far more a socioeconomic problem than a gun problem.

Any minute now I'm sure he's gonna come in with a list of statistics showing a higher homicide rate from concealed carry holder than the rest of society... You know because all these crazy people prone to violence but at the same time care about the administrative rules of where and how they can carry them while murdering people.

I'm sure that's why we are seeing such a severe upswing in violent crime and murders since most states started adopting concealed carry laws. Especially in the more permissive states like Alabama and Vermont... Oh wait no it's been the opposite.

 

[z987k]

Any minute now I'm sure he's gonna come in with a list of statistics showing a higher homicide rate from concealed carry holder than the rest of society... You know because all these crazy people prone to violence but at the same time care about the administrative rules of where and how they can carry them while murdering people.

I'm sure that's why we are seeing such a severe upswing in violent crime and murders since most states started adopting concealed carry laws. Especially in the more permissive states like Alabama and Vermont... Oh wait no it's been the opposite.

I'm not sure I'd attribute a falling of violent crime and murder to carry laws at the same time. Nationally, murder is way way down and has been falling for 2 decades. It's just on the news more.
I mean really I don't think carry laws make any difference in murder rates one way or another.

 

[Lawman]

I'm not sure I'd attribute a falling of violent crime and murder to carry laws at the same time. Nationally, murder is way way down and has been falling for 2 decades. It's just on the news more.
I mean really I don't think carry laws make any difference in murder rates one way or another.

There is little to no correlation between the two. The difference with more property and violent based crime however has been demonstrated.

Homicide rates tend to ebb and flow on their own and follow year long trends. It's estimated right now we are either in a trough or at the bottom and starting to turn up (with the social unrest going on that shouldn't be surprising). However what has been seen in DOJ studies severe and sharp deviations both one way or the other related to concealed carry rules and more draconian gun control movements. It's also found pretty heavily in discussions with career criminals in prison. States with a higher likelihood of firearm ownership see lower rates of more intrusive crimes like home invasion and the resultant sexual assaults/aggravated assaults that typically accompany those types of crimes. The property crimes they do see are typically more prowler type actions like car break-ins and loose property theft where the criminal is further distanced from the actual encounter with the victim.

 

[qflyer]

I'm ok with conceal carrying as long as there is actually some real training involved with it. Not just a 4 hr safety course and a joke written test. Or worse, no requirements at all as in a couple states.

I'm okay with people being allowed to vote as long as there is some real training/education involved with it. Everyone should be required to take an 8 hour long civics class, and then be required to pass a test on how the local/state/federal governments work with at least an 80% score. Then you should have to pass a test (80% or better) on every single candidate/amendment that will be on the ballot. Don't know candidate D's stance on abortion, taxes, gun rights, civil liberties, foreign policy, judicial reform, etc? Sorry, you don't get to vote this time around. Better luck next time.

Of course, the system that would be put in to place to make all this happen would cost money, and the government doesn't have any extra laying around here lately. That means you'll have to pay a $50 fee to take all the required tests in order to exercise your Constitutional right to vote.

Finally, this is not a one time deal. You have to jump through the hoops every single time you want to vote. Gotta make sure you're still proficient and safe to vote, right?

Sound reasonable?

 

[z987k]

I'm okay with people being allowed to vote as long as there is some real training/education involved with it. Everyone should be required to take an 8 hour long civics class, and then be required to pass a test on how the local/state/federal governments work with at least an 80% score. Then you should have to pass a test (80% or better) on every single candidate/amendment that will be on the ballot. Don't know candidate D's stance on abortion, taxes, gun rights, civil liberties, foreign policy, judicial reform, etc? Sorry, you don't get to vote this time around. Better luck next time.

Of course, the system that would be put in to place to make all this happen would cost money, and the government doesn't have any extra laying around here lately. That means you'll have to pay a $50 fee to take all the required tests in order to exercise your Constitutional right to vote.

Finally, this is not a one time deal. You have to jump through the hoops every single time you want to vote. Gotta make sure you're still proficient and safe to vote, right?

Sound reasonable?

No one in the Senate or House would ever be allowed to vote on anything if they had these restrictions. And they are more or less well educated. The public, talk about voter disenfranchisement.

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

I'm okay with people being allowed to vote as long as there is some real training/education involved with it. Everyone should be required to take an 8 hour long civics class, and then be required to pass a test on how the local/state/federal governments work with at least an 80% score. Then you should have to pass a test (80% or better) on every single candidate/amendment that will be on the ballot. Don't know candidate D's stance on abortion, taxes, gun rights, civil liberties, foreign policy, judicial reform, etc? Sorry, you don't get to vote this time around. Better luck next time.

Of course, the system that would be put in to place to make all this happen would cost money, and the government doesn't have any extra laying around here lately. That means you'll have to pay a $50 fee to take all the required tests in order to exercise your Constitutional right to vote.

Finally, this is not a one time deal. You have to jump through the hoops every single time you want to vote. Gotta make sure you're still proficient and safe to vote, right?

Sound reasonable?

Hell, with people's support of Trump and Hillary, I'd be with you 100%. Too many idiots that have zero education and knowledge have the 'right' to change this country into a dark pit hole from which it will be very hard to recover.


A strong Republic with a democratic voting principle for elections only works when the people make rational, fact-based decisions, and not based on emotional rabble rabble (eg, single issue voters, undecided voters, Trump voters, the list goes on).

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

Btw Lawman, your desire and apparent must-need to always conceal carry to ensure your safety from another potential shooter is about as rare a chance of happening as my fear of being shot by a shooter, which in mass (greater than 4 dead) is statistically very remote chance of happening.

So in your rarely extreme circumstance, you want it because you need it to protect yourself.

But in my rarely extreme circumstance, I get told the chances of it happening to me are so rare and stop worrying? How come that argument doesn't also work for you?

And those words aren't much consolation to the 6 dead in Michigan and the several more injured, including the 14 yr old "gravely" injured.

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

You are talking around in circles inside your butt again.

You can't be for Australia's solution to the so called "gun problem" and then try and say you are ok with civilian concealed carry since it doesn't exist in that country, then again neither does any real form of handgun ownership in that country.

Gun ownership exists there. It just doesn't exist to the form that you want it to exist. But that doesn't make it the same as non-existing.

 

[Lawman]

Btw Lawman, your desire and apparent must-need to always conceal carry to ensure your safety from another potential shooter is about as rare a chance of happening as my fear of being shot by a shooter, which in mass (greater than 4 dead) is statistically very remote chance of happening.

So in your rarely extreme circumstance, you want it because you need it to protect yourself.

But in my rarely extreme circumstance, I get told the chances of it happening to me are so rare and stop worrying? How come that argument doesn't also work for you?

And those words aren't much consolation to the 6 dead in Michigan and the several more injured, including the 14 yr old "gravely" injured.

Estimates from the lowest at 80k to the highest at 2.5 million uses of firearms for personal defense in this country.

More lives saved by armed law abiding citizens than taken. It's math.

And nothing you said refutes any of the statistics, identified criminal trends (lower violent crime rates in response to CCW), or the fact you keep using double speak to both say we can do it while simultaneously calling for laws and systems that prevent us (law abiding citizens) from doing it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

Any minute now I'm sure he's gonna come in with a list of statistics showing a higher homicide rate from concealed carry holder than the rest of society... You know because all these crazy people prone to violence but at the same time care about the administrative rules of where and how they can carry them while murdering people.

I'm sure that's why we are seeing such a severe upswing in violent crime and murders since most states started adopting concealed carry laws. Especially in the more permissive states like Alabama and Vermont... Oh wait no it's been the opposite.

No, but you still have these types:

"The truck driver said a motorcyclist leaned against his truck in traffic and nudged it. When the motorcyclist was "popping wheelies" in front of his truck, it was at that point, the truck driver - who has a concealed weapons license - became infuriated."

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

Oh, and that finger seems to be the trigger. Is that the shooting discipline taught in Vegas when one is only brandishing a weapon and not with the intent of shooting?


I wonder who does those statistics you just quoted? Do they include these types as "successfully using their self defense weapon to ward off a potential attacker?"

 

[Lawman]

Gun ownership exists there. It just doesn't exist to the form that you want it to exist. But that doesn't make it the same as non-existing.

The only people authorized to carry a handgun in that country are either people whose job requires them to (cops, security, etc) or people who belong to a competitive handgun club and are prevented under that class H license from carrying a loaded firearm outside competition.

That isn't consistent with any of the codified law on the books as to the 2nd amendment. It would be like saying "you can have free speech" and then passing a law saying you are protected from illegal search but then only protecting the left front pocket of denim pants.

Like I said, you can't keep saying "we should do like ____" and not have any clue what those laws are and then say "I believe in CCW" and be taken seriously.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk