What is better, no guns, or more guns?

[reddogblitz]

bj

I know we can't take guns away from everyone. I get that. Ideally though, I don't think arming everyone is the best possible world.

I agree with this. Countries with no 2nd Ammendment have Next to ZERO people shot with guns by police or other citizens. However, here, the horse has already left the barn.

[ExiledInIllinois]

I agree with this. Countries with no 2nd Ammendment have Next to ZERO people shot with guns by police or other citizens. However, here, the horse has already left the barn.

 

 

Yes... The genie is out of the bottle... Or horse, but what about the continued new manufacturing or importation. Can't that be slowed down?

[IDBillzFan]

The most responsible person on earth even has issues from time to time. Everybody has issues. It isn't about being responsible. I was talking about suicides by firearms above... You telling me every one of those incidents, the person was irresponsible. Is that the case? Then they shouldn't have had a firearm because they were totally mental and not responsible enough to have one.

 

Your point here seems to be specifically about suicide.On one hand, you admit they will find a way to kill themselves, and on the other hand, you think it's dangerous to have a gun in the house because even the most responsible people may want to off themselves.

 

Should we also close the Golden Gate bridge? Get rid of trees and rope? Elminate cars, garages and hoses?

 

It's an imperfect world filled with imperfect people doing stupid things every single day. You simply can not save a life that does not want to be saved, no matter how much you want to legislate their life.

[boater]

Flew home last night sitting next to a chief from Seattle who'd spent the week at a national training event that included other high-level officials from law enforcement around the country. I mentioned the shooting in W.WA Friday (5 dead) and the Kansas incident. They'd been pretty locked down and he wasn't aware of them.

 

Interesting response from him = when he had little kids, he got rid of personal guns. That way he didn't have to worry about them hurting themselves. He also said that based on his training and experience, no way in HELL would he, if he carried a firearm off duty (which he does not) try to intervene in an incident with a firearm because the risk that HE would get shot when the police arrived.

 

I know there are plenty of buffoons on the board with John Wayne syndrome, but this guy is someone who actually knows what he's talking about. I found it surprising and, frankly, refreshing. Just a little dose of reality.

I call bull ****.

 

There is no off duty police officer who doesn't carry. None.

 

For eternity, you run the ever present danger of running into someone you've busted who hates you likes there no tomorrow.

 

No police officer off duty is without a firearm. By necessity.

[TakeYouToTasker]

I'll say it again:

 

Figuring the ideal amount of guns is exactly the same amount of political parties.

 

The ideal amount of either in any healthy society is zero. Failing that, the ideal amount in infinite.

Edited February 28, 2016 by TakeYouToTasker

[drinkTHEkoolaid]

I call bull ****.

 

There is no off duty police officer who doesn't carry. None.

 

For eternity, you run the ever present danger of running into someone you've busted who hates you likes there no tomorrow.

 

No police officer off duty is without a firearm. By necessity.

This is exactly what other law enforcement people say that I personally know.

[ExiledInIllinois]

 

Your point here seems to be specifically about suicide.On one hand, you admit they will find a way to kill themselves, and on the other hand, you think it's dangerous to have a gun in the house because even the most responsible people may want to off themselves.

 

Should we also close the Golden Gate bridge? Get rid of trees and rope? Elminate cars, garages and hoses?

 

It's an imperfect world filled with imperfect people doing stupid things every single day. You simply can not save a life that does not want to be saved, no matter how much you want to legislate their life.

I guess it is. Guns are just deadly efficient and quick... Speeds the whole game up and doesn't enable people to think through their emotions.

 

Look @ The Klan rally in Anaheim... Just imagine if everybody was carrying heat. True... You will never stop all hell breaking loose.

 

We need to break away from zero-sum society, highly competitive culture. Guns represent that competitive society.

 

I am not advocating total ban or going house to house... You'd have to be kidding if anyone suggests that. I am advocating against the cheap dump of weapons and ammo onto the market... Cheap importation...

 

I was given one of two choices in this thread. I chose mine... Mine moves away from a highly competitive game.

This is exactly what other law enforcement people say that I personally know.

Do you think law enforcement people want the general populace armed to the teeth?

 

When was the last time in our history when the people out gunned the police? And reason why during that era, gun restrictions were made tighter... Now on the last two decades the accessibilty to firearms have been made loser even as more restrictions have been added.

 

That's simply not the right formula to follow... Hence all the violence.

 

When will the breaking point be when the cops get outgunned again?

Edited February 28, 2016 by ExiledInIllinois

[Keukasmallies]

Too many people shootin' too many people.

[Tiberius]

Not considered a mass shooting: http://news.yahoo.com/least-three-dead-20-wounded-kansas-shooting-010528437.html;_ylt=AwrC0wxGbdNWHD0AZdiamolQ;_ylu=X3oDMTBydWNmY2MwBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwM0BHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg--

 

Even though he shot 20 people he "only" killed three

[DC Tom]

Not considered a mass shooting: http://news.yahoo.com/least-three-dead-20-wounded-kansas-shooting-010528437.html;_ylt=AwrC0wxGbdNWHD0AZdiamolQ;_ylu=X3oDMTBydWNmY2MwBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwM0BHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg--

 

Even though he shot 20 people he "only" killed three

 

Yeah, the definition of "mass shooting" depends on who's doing the counting. There is no official definition. And there's only one organization that I know of that would consider it a "mass shooting" if I purposely shot 30 people in the leg.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Too many people shootin' too many people.

How've you been Keuka! Those smallies will be out to had very soon! All downhill w/winter now!

 

 

"Hang ups, let downs

Bad breaks, set backs

Natural fact is

I can't pay my taxes

Oh, make me wanna holler

And throw up both my hands

Yea, it makes me wanna holler

And throw up both my hands

Crime is increasing

Trigger happy policing

Panic is spreading

God know where we're heading

Oh, make me wanna holler

They don't understand..."

[boyst]

Flew home last night sitting next to a chief from Seattle who'd spent the week at a national training event that included other high-level officials from law enforcement around the country. I mentioned the shooting in W.WA Friday (5 dead) and the Kansas incident. They'd been pretty locked down and he wasn't aware of them.

 

Interesting response from him = when he had little kids, he got rid of personal guns. That way he didn't have to worry about them hurting themselves. He also said that based on his training and experience, no way in HELL would he, if he carried a firearm off duty (which he does not) try to intervene in an incident with a firearm because the risk that HE would get shot when the police arrived.

 

I know there are plenty of buffoons on the board with John Wayne syndrome, but this guy is someone who actually knows what he's talking about. I found it surprising and, frankly, refreshing. Just a little dose of reality.

my sister in law would disagree.

 

this is a woman who went to Columbia on Poly Sci, believed in gun control for the most part and threw a fit when my brother had taken my grandpa's gun in to his house for safe keeping. she entered law enforcement at a late...and no, she is not some podunk police chief from Seattle. i asked her this past Fall how her view on gun control has changed. she said she thinks everyone should carry. and guess what? 24/7/365 anywhere she goes she carries - airports, schools, airplanes, anywhere in this country she is permitted and actually required to carry her weapon. she likes it that way.

 

she and my brother have two kids. the kids know what the guns are and they know the rules of them. they know not to touch moms purse or her go-bag. they know if they see a gun sitting around to tell mom or dad. they are not even allowed to touch her vest, or other gear.

 

it's all about being a good parent.

 

she said anyone who does not carry a gun is a fool in most cases.

Not considered a mass shooting: http://news.yahoo.com/least-three-dead-20-wounded-kansas-shooting-010528437.html;_ylt=AwrC0wxGbdNWHD0AZdiamolQ;_ylu=X3oDMTBydWNmY2MwBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwM0BHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg--

 

Even though he shot 20 people he "only" killed three

when Howard Stern - King of all Liberals - proclaimed that if anyone would have had a gun in most of these cases of mass shootings in recent news the outcome would likely have been much, much different.

 

I am waiting for your light to come on, as well.

Edited February 29, 2016 by Boyst62

[ExiledInIllinois]

my sister in law would disagree.

 

this is a woman who went to Columbia on Poly Sci, believed in gun control for the most part and threw a fit when my brother had taken my grandpa's gun in to his house for safe keeping. she entered law enforcement at a late...and no, she is not some podunk police chief from Seattle. i asked her this past Fall how her view on gun control has changed. she said she thinks everyone should carry. and guess what? 24/7/365 anywhere she goes she carries - airports, schools, airplanes, anywhere in this country she is permitted and actually required to carry her weapon. she likes it that way.

 

she and my brother have two kids. the kids know what the guns are and they know the rules of them. they know not to touch moms purse or her go-bag. they know if they see a gun sitting around to tell mom or dad. they are not even allowed to touch her vest, or other gear.

 

it's all about being a good parent.

 

she said anyone who does not carry a gun is a fool in most cases.

 

when Howard Stern - King of all Liberals - proclaimed that if anyone would have had a gun in most of these cases of mass shootings in recent news the outcome would likely have been much, much different.

 

I am waiting for your light to come on, as well.

Sure the game is "bigger"... But is it "better?"

 

I say no. That is OP's question. Are things better? Hardly. It is that flood of arms and ammo into the hands of the populace that has made the game bigger.

 

Weren't things so much better when the game was smaller? Years ago. Why are there so many incidents now. What are we doing in society to make more of these shooters snap? Ease of access and the flood of weapons isn't helping.

[boyst]

Sure the game is "bigger"... But is it "better?"

 

I say no. That is OP's question. Are things better? Hardly. It is that flood of arms and ammo into the hands of the populace that has made the game bigger.

 

Weren't things so much better when the game was smaller? Years ago. Why are there so many incidents now. What are we doing in society to make more of these shooters snap? Ease of access and the flood of weapons isn't helping.

criminals are going to get guns disirregardless.

[ExiledInIllinois]

criminals are going to get guns disirregardless.

Yeah when there is a huge number of arms out there and the makers keep saturating the market.

 

Now... Don't get me wrong, the genie is out of the bottle, arms race has started.

 

The original question is straightforward, we all know what the right answer is & an arms race is never "better." We all know there ends up to be more incidents, it is hardly a deterrent to anything. People just become desensitized to what's in their surroundings. Look @ the proliferation of cameras, does that stop people from acting stupid in front of them? No. They just forget the fans are there.

 

Same with guns.

 

 

Who's going to take the leap of faith and move away from a zero sum arms race?

[drinkTHEkoolaid]

Yeah when there is a huge number of arms out there and the makers keep saturating the market.

 

Now... Don't get me wrong, the genie is out of the bottle, arms race has started.

 

The original question is straightforward, we all know what the right answer is & an arms race is never "better." We all know there ends up to be more incidents, it is hardly a deterrent to anything. People just become desensitized to what's in their surroundings. Look @ the proliferation of cameras, does that stop people from acting stupid in front of them? No. They just forget the fans are there.

 

Same with guns.

 

 

Who's going to take the leap of faith and move away from a zero sum arms race?

I think there are more societal issues at work that people are too quick to discount.

 

As the country becomes less religious and more secular, gun violence has increased.

 

There are less 2 parent households raising children.

 

People feel more entitled and selfish than a generation ago.

 

In general people now are much less polite and more disrespectful than just a generation ago.

 

Unemployment and underemployment has a much higher rate than a year ago.

 

The "war on drugs" and "thug culture" haven't helped either.

 

Guns are already out there. They are not going away. Too many bad guys already prey upon weaker people. I think we need more good guys with guns.

Edited February 29, 2016 by drinkTHEkoolaid

[blzrul]

 

Spare us the drama, cupcake. Anyone who spends any amount of time on this board knows there are no "buffoons...with John Wayne syndrome." This is nothing more than you, once again, over blowing your perception of what you want to believe, and supporting it with some oddball story about a guy you met on a plane who was at a national training event?

 

Assuming the training he was at was not potty training, good for him for realizing he wasn't responsible enough to keep guns in his house.

 

But virtually anyone with a passing knowledge of gun training and gun safety knows that when you treat your firearms the way they are meant to be treated, and educate your family the way the should be educated, there is no danger in your home. The only people who find danger are the people who refuse to respect the guns (and these are usually inner-city thugs with stolen firearms) and the people whose agenda against guns is too important to employ common sense.

I truly appreciate your quality contribution to the conversation. Dismissive, condescending, personal attacks add so much to the discussion and only enhance your excellent reputation as a great, open-minded intellectual. I take it the John Wayne wannabe buffoon in you just overcame you for a moment, eh?

 

This guy is a high-ranking official and I presume knows his job. He's one data point - I offered it up because it was unexpected and a different viewpoint, which I found surprising. I'll take his word any day.

[ExiledInIllinois]

I think there are more societal issues at work that people are too quick to discount.

 

As the country becomes less religious and more secular, gun violence has increased.

 

There are less 2 parent households raising children.

 

People feel more entitled and selfish than a generation ago.

 

In general people now are much less polite and more disrespectful than just a generation ago.

 

Unemployment and underemployment has a much higher rate than a year ago.

 

The "war on drugs" and "thug culture" haven't helped either.

 

Guns are already out there. They are not going away. Too many bad guys already prey upon weaker people. I think we need more good guys with guns.

I TOTALLY AGREE on every point except the very last sentence.

 

It is a liberal, secular society that put us in this position, guns should have never entered the game.

 

We need more good withOUT guns... Even if they die a martyr. Who was the most famous liberal martyr?

 

The lowest common denominator w/regard to human nature should have never creeped in w/the proliferation of guns. Our Founding Father during the Age of Englightment (very secular underneath that age) made one tragic flaw not recognizing the advancement of technology.

 

We are almost perfect, yet like all dreamers w/their heads in the clouds, the bully (human nature) is coming through the front door to control everything and everyone!

Edited February 29, 2016 by ExiledInIllinois

[Chef Jim]

 

 

This guy is a high-ranking official and I presume knows his job. He's one data point - I offered it up because it was unexpected and a different viewpoint, which I found surprising. I'll take his word any day.

 

He may know his job but he doesn't know how, or trust himself to properly secure his firearms around his children. That's a problem.

[IDBillzFan]

I truly appreciate your quality contribution to the conversation. Dismissive, condescending, personal attacks add so much to the discussion and only enhance your excellent reputation as a great, open-minded intellectual.

 

Says the woman who writes this...

 

I know there are plenty of buffoons on the board with John Wayne syndrome,

 

We all look forward to hearing about the next random person you meet who you immediately accept as a voice of authority and common sense because they say what you want to hear.