Community > Politics, Current News & Events

Previous 1 2 Next

Topic: who needs guns? the people do...
mightymoe Joined Sun 11/19/06 Posts: 37362	Mon 09/10/18 08:49 AM
Guns or not, people will still find a way to kill...if only police have guns, then only they can kill faster... http://www.rt.com/news/438017-paris-knife-attack-victims/ RT Mon, 10 Sep 2018 09:08 UTC Paris policemen © Gonzalo Fuentes / Reuters At least seven people have been injured, four seriously, in Paris after a man attacked people with a knife and an iron bar at two separate locations. The attacker is believed to be an Afghan national. In an initial incident, the attacker wounded three people in front of a cinema in the 19th arrondissement late on Sunday evening. A group of men playing petanque tried to stop him by throwing a heavy iron ball used in the popular French game, according to Le Parisien. "He had an iron bar in his hand which he threw at the men chasing him, then he took out a knife," a security guard at the cinema recalled after the initial attack. According to another witness account, a man running with a 25-30cm knife in his hand was pursued by around 20 people. "They started throwing petanque balls at him. Around four or five balls hit him in the head, but they weren't able to stop him," Youssef Najah told AFP. After running away from the scene of the first attack, the assailant continued on Rue Henri Nogueres, where he wounded two English tourists, who sustained head and chest injuries. The aggressor, who was also injured, was finally arrested by the Anti-Crime Brigade (BAC) of the police. The suspect is believed to be "an Afghan" national, local media report. In total, at least seven people were injured by the individual, four of whom have been hospitalized in a serious condition, police said. While authorities have yet to establish the motive behind the attack, an investigation has been launched into the violent spree. A source close to the probe told Le Parisien that, so far, there was no basis on which to call the incident a terrorist attack

Workin4it Joined Wed 10/02/13 Posts: 799	Mon 09/10/18 09:17 AM
Guns or not, people will still find a way to kill...if only police have guns, then only they can kill faster... http://www.rt.com/news/438017-paris-knife-attack-victims/ RT Mon, 10 Sep 2018 09:08 UTC Paris policemen © Gonzalo Fuentes / Reuters At least seven people have been injured, four seriously, in Paris after a man attacked people with a knife and an iron bar at two separate locations. The attacker is believed to be an Afghan national. In an initial incident, the attacker wounded three people in front of a cinema in the 19th arrondissement late on Sunday evening. A group of men playing petanque tried to stop him by throwing a heavy iron ball used in the popular French game, according to Le Parisien. "He had an iron bar in his hand which he threw at the men chasing him, then he took out a knife," a security guard at the cinema recalled after the initial attack. According to another witness account, a man running with a 25-30cm knife in his hand was pursued by around 20 people. "They started throwing petanque balls at him. Around four or five balls hit him in the head, but they weren't able to stop him," Youssef Najah told AFP. After running away from the scene of the first attack, the assailant continued on Rue Henri Nogueres, where he wounded two English tourists, who sustained head and chest injuries. The aggressor, who was also injured, was finally arrested by the Anti-Crime Brigade (BAC) of the police. The suspect is believed to be "an Afghan" national, local media report. In total, at least seven people were injured by the individual, four of whom have been hospitalized in a serious condition, police said. While authorities have yet to establish the motive behind the attack, an investigation has been launched into the violent spree. A source close to the probe told Le Parisien that, so far, there was no basis on which to call the incident a terrorist attack it looks as if political correctness strikes again, as our former pres. Said the other day. Why is it so hard to say nazi or in this case terrorist .it doesn't matter what weapons are not available what matters is the frame of mind of the person, and if their hellbent on killing they'll find a " weapon" remember the first was a rock. So not allowing guns for individuals will not stop someone determined to kill

d__u__b Joined Thu 05/15/14 Posts: 15048	Mon 09/10/18 11:48 AM
slowing down one's ability to commit mass murder isn't really a bad thing, is it?

Workin4it Joined Wed 10/02/13 Posts: 799	Mon 09/10/18 12:15 PM
slowing down one's ability to commit mass murder isn't really a bad thing, is it? no, that's a good thing , but your also slowing down someone's way of defending theirselves.

d__u__b Joined Thu 05/15/14 Posts: 15048	Mon 09/10/18 12:25 PM
not if we have proper rules in place to help do a better job of seperating those of us that have no legitimate reason to not have access to firearms from people that do.

Datwasntme Joined Fri 07/25/14 Posts: 9701	Mon 09/10/18 01:47 PM
take away guns , the bad guys will make bombs its the staight of mind , not the gun that kills people next they will be comen to take away steak knifes

Workin4it Joined Wed 10/02/13 Posts: 799	Mon 09/10/18 01:49 PM
not if we have proper rules in place to help do a better job of seperating those of us that have no legitimate reason to not have access to firearms from people that do. what would you say is a legitimate reason?

mightymoe Joined Sun 11/19/06 Posts: 37362	Mon 09/10/18 02:04 PM
slowing down one's ability to commit mass murder isn't really a bad thing, is it? if everyone had a gun at the mass shooting, would it still be "mass"?

EirikViking Joined Fri 02/23/18 Posts: 101	Tue 09/11/18 12:20 PM Edited by EirikViking on Tue 09/11/18 12:21 PM
Difficult to say. There will always be guns and there will always be shooting of innocent People. I can't say if it better to carry a gun or not. But just for fun, take a look at this Youtube clip from Norwegian police arresting a drunk man. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1PNPcnffbk&t=1s

tombraider Joined Wed 09/12/07 Posts: 5042	Tue 09/11/18 01:05 PM
let's not forget criminals DON'T follow the rules..

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Wed 09/12/18 08:22 AM
let's not forget criminals DON'T follow the rules.. yes, thats how we know they are criminals. Without the rules, there would be no rule breakers (ie, criminals)

Conrad_73 Joined Sat 09/29/07 Posts: 22488	Wed 09/12/18 09:14 AM


actionlynx Joined Wed 08/18/10 Posts: 5448	Wed 09/12/18 12:19 PM
Too many people already conveniently overlook the fact that all the "proper tools" are already in place, i.e. the regulations. The problem lies in enforceability. For instance, you can't stop an illegal sale without some kind of tip-off. You can't stop a felon from illegally carrying a firearm unless you already know he's in possession of one. You can't know if someone is prohibited from carrying a firearm without a background check, which is difficult to do in the field and on the spot. If the suspect believes he'll be caught in possession, there's a good chance he'll either flee or kill an officer before the check is complete. We don't need more bans and regulations. We need a streamlined system that enables police to better enforce the laws we already have. One of my ideas has been to place an endorsement on state-issued IDs and licenses for people who are prohibited from possessing firearms. Then no on-the-spot background check (via radio or computer) is necessary. Despite whatever drawbacks it may have, it would still make it easier for police to enforce regulations in the field. For instance, if a felon gets pulled over for speeding, and his license has an endorsement prohibited firearms, an officer now has justification to call for backup and search the vehicle. Or, as part of probation, the endorsement could be used to conduct periodic searches of the felon's residence to ensure he has no firearms. Part of the problem is that the system lack pre-emptive enforcement against individuals who are already banned from possessing. By the time the police can enforce the law, something bad and preventable has already happened. Sure, it's not foolproof. There are some kinks to work out. But it provides 1) a step in the right direction, and 2) food toward a more fruitful discussion.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Wed 09/12/18 03:31 PM
Too many people already conveniently overlook the fact that all the "proper tools" are already in place, i.e. the regulations. The problem lies in enforceability. For instance, you can't stop an illegal sale without some kind of tip-off. You can't stop a felon from illegally carrying a firearm unless you already know he's in possession of one. You can't know if someone is prohibited from carrying a firearm without a background check, which is difficult to do in the field and on the spot. If the suspect believes he'll be caught in possession, there's a good chance he'll either flee or kill an officer before the check is complete. We don't need more bans and regulations. We need a streamlined system that enables police to better enforce the laws we already have. One of my ideas has been to place an endorsement on state-issued IDs and licenses for people who are prohibited from possessing firearms. Then no on-the-spot background check (via radio or computer) is necessary. Despite whatever drawbacks it may have, it would still make it easier for police to enforce regulations in the field. For instance, if a felon gets pulled over for speeding, and his license has an endorsement prohibited firearms, an officer now has justification to call for backup and search the vehicle. Or, as part of probation, the endorsement could be used to conduct periodic searches of the felon's residence to ensure he has no firearms. Part of the problem is that the system lack pre-emptive enforcement against individuals who are already banned from possessing. By the time the police can enforce the law, something bad and preventable has already happened. Sure, it's not foolproof. There are some kinks to work out. But it provides 1) a step in the right direction, and 2) food toward a more fruitful discussion. it is an idea not without merit. The issue I see with it is the right not to have search without probable cause and whether it is just to treat anyone with a no right to carry designation as having 'probable cause' for such an infringement. Do people serve their time and then(except when on probation) come out and be continued to be treated as a threat?

1Topleaseyou Joined Tue 08/14/18 Posts: 503	Thu 09/13/18 03:03 AM
Interesting read. http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/concealed-carry/ A solid fact is that no matter how strict the gun laws continue to get, the 'Bad Guys' (Who do not follow the laws) will continue to obtain and use them. Laws are similar to locks, they are only a sense of false security for the honest. The bad guys will continue to cut locks and break laws!

IgorFrankensteen Joined Thu 10/01/09 Posts: 5444	Thu 09/13/18 04:50 AM
What you are saying with this thread, is that since violent people WILL find a way to act out, that we should collectively do NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO TRY TO STOP THEM. I would suggest instead, that the solution to a very complicated problem, is going to involve a complicated response, with multiple actions. I completely agree that JUST preventing people from having guns doesn't prevent all violent acts. But doing NOTHING because that's true, is about as intelligent and logical as deciding to do NOTHING about robbery, since JUST locking your car door doesn't prevent all such acts.

Workin4it Joined Wed 10/02/13 Posts: 799	Thu 09/13/18 06:42 PM
What you are saying with this thread, is that since violent people WILL find a way to act out, that we should collectively do NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO TRY TO STOP THEM. I would suggest instead, that the solution to a very complicated problem, is going to involve a complicated response, with multiple actions. I completely agree that JUST preventing people from having guns doesn't prevent all violent acts. But doing NOTHING because that's true, is about as intelligent and logical as deciding to do NOTHING about robbery, since JUST locking your car door doesn't prevent all such acts. just the opposite Igor, it might be a cold heartless remedy in some peoples minds , but if people defend themselves forcibly enough times ( as in assailant dies after trying to assult someone) and the media gets the story out there, maybe they will think twice before they act. Fighting back has stopped the hijacking of planes for the most part.

1Topleaseyou Joined Tue 08/14/18 Posts: 503	Thu 09/13/18 08:52 PM
Igor, I'm slightly puzzled by your reply and would like to know and understand completely your point of view. The way I perceive your comment, is that you feel making it harder to obtain a gun will reduce gun related crimes. Are you an advocate for more legislation on gun control? If that is what you took away from my post, I apologize, for being too vague with my opinion. I do believe something needs to be done (several things) as you pointed out that this will require a complex solution. I really like the idea that msharmony presented, having a restriction listed on your State issued ID. This will only prevent the felons and the mentally disabled. The recent and first problem that needs addressed are the children who use guns to 'get back at' or 'get even with' their peers who (they feel) hurt their feelings. A fraction of these instances (horrible) involves that gun being LEGALLY obtained for the sole purpose of committing the act of 'getting even'. Most of the guns used are stolen by this child from a family member, to be used. Yes, there are irresponsible and ignorant gun owners, for the most part gun owners are responsible. I firmly believe that if a gun is used to commit a crime, that RO is and should be held to the same penalty that the offender is facing. I also have the same opinion as Workin4it, you FORCIBLY stop the perpetrators and eventually those numbers will decline. The right to forcibly defend your home, auto, your neighbor, his home or vehicle, is what the Castle Doctrine/Law represents. Most States have adopted this doctrine, with the exception of 9 States, who have little to no form of this legal right. Even though the CD is recognized in most States, I do not believe it has been litigated in all. Open Carry can also be a solution! There is too much information in my reply for hyperlinks. A very good resource, updated very frequently is https://www.usacarry.com/about-usa-carry.html What you are saying with this thread, is that since violent people WILL find a way to act out, that we should collectively do NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO TRY TO STOP THEM. I would suggest instead, that the solution to a very complicated problem, is going to involve a complicated response, with multiple actions. I completely agree that JUST preventing people from having guns doesn't prevent all violent acts. But doing NOTHING because that's true, is about as intelligent and logical as deciding to do NOTHING about robbery, since JUST locking your car door doesn't prevent all such acts.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Thu 09/13/18 08:57 PM
Igor, I'm slightly puzzled by your reply and would like to know and understand completely your point of view. The way I perceive your comment, is that you feel making it harder to obtain a gun will reduce gun related crimes. Are you an advocate for more legislation on gun control? If that is what you took away from my post, I apologize, for being too vague with my opinion. I do believe something needs to be done (several things) as you pointed out that this will require a complex solution. I really like the idea that msharmony presented, having a restriction listed on your State issued ID. This will only prevent the felons and the mentally disabled. The recent and first problem that needs addressed are the children who use guns to 'get back at' or 'get even with' their peers who (they feel) hurt their feelings. A fraction of these instances (horrible) involves that gun being LEGALLY obtained for the sole purpose of committing the act of 'getting even'. Most of the guns used are stolen by this child from a family member, to be used. Yes, there are irresponsible and ignorant gun owners, for the most part gun owners are responsible. I firmly believe that if a gun is used to commit a crime, that RO is and should be held to the same penalty that the offender is facing. I also have the same opinion as Workin4it, you FORCIBLY stop the perpetrators and eventually those numbers will decline. The right to forcibly defend your home, auto, your neighbor, his home or vehicle, is what the Castle Doctrine/Law represents. Most States have adopted this doctrine, with the exception of 9 States, who have little to no form of this legal right. Even though the CD is recognized in most States, I do not believe it has been litigated in all. Open Carry can also be a solution! There is too much information in my reply for hyperlinks. A very good resource, updated very frequently is https://www.usacarry.com/about-usa-carry.html What you are saying with this thread, is that since violent people WILL find a way to act out, that we should collectively do NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO TRY TO STOP THEM. I would suggest instead, that the solution to a very complicated problem, is going to involve a complicated response, with multiple actions. I completely agree that JUST preventing people from having guns doesn't prevent all violent acts. But doing NOTHING because that's true, is about as intelligent and logical as deciding to do NOTHING about robbery, since JUST locking your car door doesn't prevent all such acts. in full disclosure, the state id was actually action's suggestion But I agree that multiple actions, both proactive and reactive must come together to address the issue.

1Topleaseyou Joined Tue 08/14/18 Posts: 503	Thu 09/13/18 09:10 PM
The State ID would certainly have to be a Driver's License, that being a 'privilege' can be, in no better terms, infringed upon. It does not violate any individuals Civil Rights, but by revoking or restrictions being placed on it could prevent a 'legal' purchase for ill-intentions. The individual must either pass the test to get the endorsement or have the restriction removed FROM THE DL. That would be a requirement to possess before purchasing, nothing more or LESS. Igor, I'm slightly puzzled by your reply and would like to know and understand completely your point of view. The way I perceive your comment, is that you feel making it harder to obtain a gun will reduce gun related crimes. Are you an advocate for more legislation on gun control? If that is what you took away from my post, I apologize, for being too vague with my opinion. I do believe something needs to be done (several things) as you pointed out that this will require a complex solution. I really like the idea that msharmony presented, having a restriction listed on your State issued ID. This will only prevent the felons and the mentally disabled. The recent and first problem that needs addressed are the children who use guns to 'get back at' or 'get even with' their peers who (they feel) hurt their feelings. A fraction of these instances (horrible) involves that gun being LEGALLY obtained for the sole purpose of committing the act of 'getting even'. Most of the guns used are stolen by this child from a family member, to be used. Yes, there are irresponsible and ignorant gun owners, for the most part gun owners are responsible. I firmly believe that if a gun is used to commit a crime, that RO is and should be held to the same penalty that the offender is facing. I also have the same opinion as Workin4it, you FORCIBLY stop the perpetrators and eventually those numbers will decline. The right to forcibly defend your home, auto, your neighbor, his home or vehicle, is what the Castle Doctrine/Law represents. Most States have adopted this doctrine, with the exception of 9 States, who have little to no form of this legal right. Even though the CD is recognized in most States, I do not believe it has been litigated in all. Open Carry can also be a solution! There is too much information in my reply for hyperlinks. A very good resource, updated very frequently is https://www.usacarry.com/about-usa-carry.html What you are saying with this thread, is that since violent people WILL find a way to act out, that we should collectively do NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO TRY TO STOP THEM. I would suggest instead, that the solution to a very complicated problem, is going to involve a complicated response, with multiple actions. I completely agree that JUST preventing people from having guns doesn't prevent all violent acts. But doing NOTHING because that's true, is about as intelligent and logical as deciding to do NOTHING about robbery, since JUST locking your car door doesn't prevent all such acts. in full disclosure, the state id was actually action's suggestion But I agree that multiple actions, both proactive and reactive must come together to address the issue.