(08-04-2019 11:31 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(08-04-2019 11:24 PM)IAH Wrote:  

(08-04-2019 08:28 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(08-04-2019 03:21 PM)IAH Wrote:  

(08-04-2019 12:10 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  Such as?

And if so, why hasn’t it been done already with the ~20,000 various gun laws we have now?

Honest ?, I have two kids in college that are currently home.

We had a 2 hour drive to the airport a couple weeks ago and for some reason (forgotten now) this topic came up.

Both of them said much the same thing, “ we’ve got to do SOMETHING!”. I said fine. But what?

It was all gun licensing, gun registration, gun ownership restriction etc. I asked how many criminals are going to follow those laws all of the sudden?

Not much in response cause there is none.

Any restriction, additional burocracy, license, etc could help. The same way a well lit house, or a house with an alarm sign in the front yard helps to stop certain types of criminals (of course not all, if someone is determined to break into your house they will probably find a way). But I would assume same would apply to these shootings.

Say that a license requires some courses, tests etc. Where you add some evaluations where these guys think they could be flagged. Or you make the waiting period for the background check last a few months. Or the first gun you buy is s more basic with a limit in ammunition, and maybe you have to wait a while (say a year) to be allowed to buy as many as you want. Or if you are ubder 25 (I thought if this limit thinking of rental cars) a parent or say a shooting instructor needs to vouch for you.

Look, I just thought of these ideas now, and I am sure you will find issues with them. My point is that any barrier helps.

We already have barriers. What you want to do is punish law abiding citizens and hinder their ability to protect themselves and their families.

Yes the barrier is as long as you are not crazy or a criminal and at least 18 you are good to go.

So are you suggesting we adopt pre-crime regulations? Shall we employ psychics to predict the future before we allow people to exercise their Constitutional right to bear arms?

Are there any other rights we should restrict this way?

Minority Report...

(08-04-2019 11:39 PM)IAH Wrote:  

(08-04-2019 08:31 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(08-04-2019 03:44 PM)IAH Wrote:  

(08-04-2019 03:33 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(08-04-2019 03:21 PM)IAH Wrote:  Any restriction, additional burocracy, license, etc could help. The same way a well lit house, or a house with an alarm sign in the front yard helps to stop certain types of criminals (of course not all, if someone is determined to break into your house they will probably find a way). But I would assume same would apply to these shootings.

Say that a license requires some courses, tests etc. Where you add some evaluations where these guys think they could be flagged. Or you make the waiting period for the background check last a few months. Or the first gun you buy is s more basic with a limit in ammunition, and maybe you have to wait a while (say a year) to be allowed to buy as many as you want. Or if you are ubder 25 (I thought if this limit thinking of rental cars) a parent or say a shooting instructor needs to vouch for you.

Look, I just thought of these ideas now, and I am sure you will find issues with them. My point is that any barrier helps.

I’m short on time right now, but very quickly none of those will prevent two types of people from getting guns or using another method of mass killings like driving down a bike path at 70 mph on a Saturday afternoon.

Two types: criminals and those bent on killing people: nuts IOWs.

Who will it affect? Law abiding citizens. Hunh

I don’t think you can just assume it would not stop some of these guys. And of course I agree that it would not stop all of them.

Also you cannot just assume all of these guys would find a different way of killing a bunch of people if they are not able to buy a gun.

I know it would affect law abiding citizens more... but so does say airport security. I mean , how mean law abiding citizens go through security before we catch a nut case.

You are unbelievably naive.

Well to think additional barriers wouldn’t deter SOME of these shootings it’s just disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing

To think that additional barriers wouldn't restrict my constitutional freedoms and would have a negligible effect is incredibly naive. KILLING PEOPLE IS ALREADY ILLEGAL.

(08-05-2019 07:13 AM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  How about this: let’s ban guns in video games and non-military movies first.

I bet there would be an epic uproar from the left about their right to free speech.....

And I bet that future generations would grow up without the callous disregard for the sanctity of human life that results from watching violence at a safe distance.

(08-04-2019 11:31 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(08-04-2019 11:24 PM)IAH Wrote:  

(08-04-2019 08:28 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(08-04-2019 03:21 PM)IAH Wrote:  

(08-04-2019 12:10 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  Such as?

And if so, why hasn’t it been done already with the ~20,000 various gun laws we have now?

Honest ?, I have two kids in college that are currently home.

We had a 2 hour drive to the airport a couple weeks ago and for some reason (forgotten now) this topic came up.

Both of them said much the same thing, “ we’ve got to do SOMETHING!”. I said fine. But what?

It was all gun licensing, gun registration, gun ownership restriction etc. I asked how many criminals are going to follow those laws all of the sudden?

Not much in response cause there is none.

Any restriction, additional burocracy, license, etc could help. The same way a well lit house, or a house with an alarm sign in the front yard helps to stop certain types of criminals (of course not all, if someone is determined to break into your house they will probably find a way). But I would assume same would apply to these shootings.

Say that a license requires some courses, tests etc. Where you add some evaluations where these guys think they could be flagged. Or you make the waiting period for the background check last a few months. Or the first gun you buy is s more basic with a limit in ammunition, and maybe you have to wait a while (say a year) to be allowed to buy as many as you want. Or if you are ubder 25 (I thought if this limit thinking of rental cars) a parent or say a shooting instructor needs to vouch for you.

Look, I just thought of these ideas now, and I am sure you will find issues with them. My point is that any barrier helps.

We already have barriers. What you want to do is punish law abiding citizens and hinder their ability to protect themselves and their families.

Yes the barrier is as long as you are not crazy or a criminal and at least 18 you are good to go.

So are you suggesting we adopt pre-crime regulations? Shall we employ psychics to predict the future before we allow people to exercise their Constitutional right to bear arms?

Are there any other rights we should restrict this way?

Why go through all that trouble? They’re already well on their way to defining the problem child and convincing the general public. The problem is “obviously” white, conservative males also known as “white nationalist”. Just take a listen to all the 2020 Dem hopefuls yesterday. That’s all they could muster up, even though at least one of the two culprits from the weekend was a self-described leftist and the other in his own words said his beliefs and anger pre-dated the current political rhetoric.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

What could have stopped this crazy was someone legally armed. How does a person walk through a parking lot into a store carrying an AR without drawing attention?

(08-05-2019 07:38 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  What could have stopped this crazy was someone legally armed. How does a person walk through a parking lot into a store carrying an AR without drawing attention?

I mean the cops shot him dead in under a minute. I doubt many armed citizens could do much better than that. The reality is, in a crowded space with any kind of semi auto or auto weapon you can do a lot of damage in seconds.

Only takes a fraction of a second to pull the trigger and you don't really have to aim to hit a target in a crowd.

I don't think more people with guns would have made much difference in this particular situation.

(08-05-2019 08:02 AM)Niner National Wrote:  

(08-05-2019 07:38 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  What could have stopped this crazy was someone legally armed. How does a person walk through a parking lot into a store carrying an AR without drawing attention?

I mean the cops shot him dead in under a minute. I doubt many armed citizens could do much better than that. The reality is, in a crowded space with any kind of semi auto or auto weapon you can do a lot of damage in seconds.

Only takes a fraction of a second to pull the trigger and you don't really have to aim to hit a target in a crowd.

I don't think more people with guns would have made much difference in this particular situation.

I think Blue was posting about El Paso although this is the Dayton thread.
El Paso shooter killed people outside of the store, so attention wasn't the issue.
The cop in Dayton did a hell of a job. The shooter, after shooting a bunch of people then ran toward the bar/club and was running into it to kill more people when the cop dropped him

(08-05-2019 08:02 AM)Niner National Wrote:  

(08-05-2019 07:38 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  What could have stopped this crazy was someone legally armed. How does a person walk through a parking lot into a store carrying an AR without drawing attention?

I mean the cops shot him dead in under a minute. I doubt many armed citizens could do much better than that. The reality is, in a crowded space with any kind of semi auto or auto weapon you can do a lot of damage in seconds.

Only takes a fraction of a second to pull the trigger and you don't really have to aim to hit a target in a crowd.

I don't think more people with guns would have made much difference in this particular situation.

I don't know how to prevent this from happening in the first place but you're correct that the armed response couldn't have been much faster. Same with Gilroy shooting, in which the shooter was killed within a minute.

If more armed citizens joined in the shooting it would have become a bloodbath (or I should say worse than it already was). Do you want to have your weapon out in the presence of the police? Would you be instantly recognized as a "good guy with a gun" or a threat to the life of the policeman?

I wouldn't bet my life on the first.

(08-05-2019 08:11 AM)TheOrigamiJimmyChin Wrote:  

(08-05-2019 08:02 AM)Niner National Wrote:  

(08-05-2019 07:38 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  What could have stopped this crazy was someone legally armed. How does a person walk through a parking lot into a store carrying an AR without drawing attention?

I mean the cops shot him dead in under a minute. I doubt many armed citizens could do much better than that. The reality is, in a crowded space with any kind of semi auto or auto weapon you can do a lot of damage in seconds.

Only takes a fraction of a second to pull the trigger and you don't really have to aim to hit a target in a crowd.

I don't think more people with guns would have made much difference in this particular situation.

I don't know how to prevent this from happening in the first place but you're correct that the armed response couldn't have been much faster. Same with Gilroy shooting, in which the shooter was killed within a minute.

If more armed citizens joined in the shooting it would have become a bloodbath (or I should say worse than it already was). Do you want to have your weapon out in the presence of the police? Would you be instantly recognized as a "good guy with a gun" or a threat to the life of the policeman?

I wouldn't bet my life on the first.

The problem with your argument is there is ready and available training for that exact situation. You being a leftist, anti-gun, and largely ignorant on the topic is no surprise though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

(08-05-2019 08:11 AM)TheOrigamiJimmyChin Wrote:  

(08-05-2019 08:02 AM)Niner National Wrote:  

(08-05-2019 07:38 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  What could have stopped this crazy was someone legally armed. How does a person walk through a parking lot into a store carrying an AR without drawing attention?

I mean the cops shot him dead in under a minute. I doubt many armed citizens could do much better than that. The reality is, in a crowded space with any kind of semi auto or auto weapon you can do a lot of damage in seconds.

Only takes a fraction of a second to pull the trigger and you don't really have to aim to hit a target in a crowd.

I don't think more people with guns would have made much difference in this particular situation.

I don't know how to prevent this from happening in the first place but you're correct that the armed response couldn't have been much faster. Same with Gilroy shooting, in which the shooter was killed within a minute.

If more armed citizens joined in the shooting it would have become a bloodbath (or I should say worse than it already was). Do you want to have your weapon out in the presence of the police? Would you be instantly recognized as a "good guy with a gun" or a threat to the life of the policeman?

I wouldn't bet my life on the first.

I still say that if had been walking into an area where several citizens had a pistol holstered on their hip this wouldn't have happened.

If anybody is wondering if I'm advocating for bringing back the "old west", you bet I am. A pistol on the hip and rifle in most every vehicle and this **** stops.

I'd much rather have EVERYBODY (good guys and bad guys) armed than only the bad guys.

(08-05-2019 08:11 AM)TheOrigamiJimmyChin Wrote:  

(08-05-2019 08:02 AM)Niner National Wrote:  

(08-05-2019 07:38 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  What could have stopped this crazy was someone legally armed. How does a person walk through a parking lot into a store carrying an AR without drawing attention?

I mean the cops shot him dead in under a minute. I doubt many armed citizens could do much better than that. The reality is, in a crowded space with any kind of semi auto or auto weapon you can do a lot of damage in seconds.

Only takes a fraction of a second to pull the trigger and you don't really have to aim to hit a target in a crowd.

I don't think more people with guns would have made much difference in this particular situation.

I don't know how to prevent this from happening in the first place but you're correct that the armed response couldn't have been much faster. Same with Gilroy shooting, in which the shooter was killed within a minute.

If more armed citizens joined in the shooting it would have become a bloodbath (or I should say worse than it already was). Do you want to have your weapon out in the presence of the police? Would you be instantly recognized as a "good guy with a gun" or a threat to the life of the policeman?

I wouldn't bet my life on the first.

Good guys with guns stop bad guys with guns all of the time. Festivals and bar districts almost always have a police presence.

(08-05-2019 08:16 AM)CG_Hawk06 Wrote:  

(08-05-2019 08:11 AM)TheOrigamiJimmyChin Wrote:  

(08-05-2019 08:02 AM)Niner National Wrote:  

(08-05-2019 07:38 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  What could have stopped this crazy was someone legally armed. How does a person walk through a parking lot into a store carrying an AR without drawing attention?

I mean the cops shot him dead in under a minute. I doubt many armed citizens could do much better than that. The reality is, in a crowded space with any kind of semi auto or auto weapon you can do a lot of damage in seconds.

Only takes a fraction of a second to pull the trigger and you don't really have to aim to hit a target in a crowd.

I don't think more people with guns would have made much difference in this particular situation.

I don't know how to prevent this from happening in the first place but you're correct that the armed response couldn't have been much faster. Same with Gilroy shooting, in which the shooter was killed within a minute.

If more armed citizens joined in the shooting it would have become a bloodbath (or I should say worse than it already was). Do you want to have your weapon out in the presence of the police? Would you be instantly recognized as a "good guy with a gun" or a threat to the life of the policeman?

I wouldn't bet my life on the first.

The problem with your argument is there is ready and available training for that exact situation. You being a leftist, anti-gun, and largely ignorant on the topic is no surprise though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

You assume wrong. Definitely not anti-gun, but I am anti-gun violence. Admittedly that doesn't give me any answers on how to stop it.

But please do excuse my ignorance and explain the recommended action in that situation. Can i assume it would be to empty your hands?

(08-05-2019 08:19 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-05-2019 08:11 AM)TheOrigamiJimmyChin Wrote:  

(08-05-2019 08:02 AM)Niner National Wrote:  

(08-05-2019 07:38 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  What could have stopped this crazy was someone legally armed. How does a person walk through a parking lot into a store carrying an AR without drawing attention?

I mean the cops shot him dead in under a minute. I doubt many armed citizens could do much better than that. The reality is, in a crowded space with any kind of semi auto or auto weapon you can do a lot of damage in seconds.

Only takes a fraction of a second to pull the trigger and you don't really have to aim to hit a target in a crowd.

I don't think more people with guns would have made much difference in this particular situation.

I don't know how to prevent this from happening in the first place but you're correct that the armed response couldn't have been much faster. Same with Gilroy shooting, in which the shooter was killed within a minute.

If more armed citizens joined in the shooting it would have become a bloodbath (or I should say worse than it already was). Do you want to have your weapon out in the presence of the police? Would you be instantly recognized as a "good guy with a gun" or a threat to the life of the policeman?

I wouldn't bet my life on the first.

I still say that if had been walking into an area where several citizens had a pistol holstered on their hip this wouldn't have happened.

If anybody is wondering if I'm advocating for bringing back the "old west", you bet I am. A pistol on the hip and rifle in most every vehicle and this **** stops.

I'd much rather have EVERYBODY (good guys and bad guys) armed than only the bad guys.

I used to think the same, but as I get older I just don't think it's a good idea for more guns to be out in the ready when there are so many hot heads and quick triggers out there. Tough to take back a bullet.

Also when you say everybody should open carry, do you think it's a good idea for a Black man to walk down the street with a rifle on his shoulder? Serious question. I know what the answer would be ideally, but what would you recommend in the real world we live in?

(08-04-2019 01:28 PM)cb4029 Wrote:  This is what happens when you tell people to go to radical off brand websites to get fake news. Thanks trump. Looks like your goofy civil war has started early. Maybe rep Omar was right.

FFS listen to yourself . Was Obama blamed for Sandy Hook? No. Likewise, it makes no sense to blame Trump for El Paso, etc. This is common sense. Both instances the perpetrator was a dick and obviously unhinged. No logical reason to blame either POTUS.

(08-05-2019 08:28 AM)TheOrigamiJimmyChin Wrote:  

(08-05-2019 08:19 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-05-2019 08:11 AM)TheOrigamiJimmyChin Wrote:  

(08-05-2019 08:02 AM)Niner National Wrote:  

(08-05-2019 07:38 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  What could have stopped this crazy was someone legally armed. How does a person walk through a parking lot into a store carrying an AR without drawing attention?

I mean the cops shot him dead in under a minute. I doubt many armed citizens could do much better than that. The reality is, in a crowded space with any kind of semi auto or auto weapon you can do a lot of damage in seconds.

Only takes a fraction of a second to pull the trigger and you don't really have to aim to hit a target in a crowd.

I don't think more people with guns would have made much difference in this particular situation.

I don't know how to prevent this from happening in the first place but you're correct that the armed response couldn't have been much faster. Same with Gilroy shooting, in which the shooter was killed within a minute.

If more armed citizens joined in the shooting it would have become a bloodbath (or I should say worse than it already was). Do you want to have your weapon out in the presence of the police? Would you be instantly recognized as a "good guy with a gun" or a threat to the life of the policeman?

I wouldn't bet my life on the first.

I still say that if had been walking into an area where several citizens had a pistol holstered on their hip this wouldn't have happened.

If anybody is wondering if I'm advocating for bringing back the "old west", you bet I am. A pistol on the hip and rifle in most every vehicle and this **** stops.

I'd much rather have EVERYBODY (good guys and bad guys) armed than only the bad guys.

I used to think the same, but as I get older I just don't think it's a good idea for more guns to be out in the ready when there are so many hot heads and quick triggers out there. Tough to take back a bullet.

Also when you say everybody should open carry, do you think it's a good idea for a Black man to walk down the street with a rifle on his shoulder? Serious question. I know what the answer would be ideally, but what would you recommend in the real world we live in?

It would be bloody for a few months maybe, but after that I can virtually guarantee this **** would stop. So would lesser crimes like assault and robbery.

Why shouldn't a black man walk down the street with a rifle on his shoulder. Black, brown, any shade of tan, makes no matter. They have a constitutional right to do so within the law (school zones, etc). Something like that would only draw attention because it is out of the normal. If open carry like I mentioned was the normal nobody would blink or give a second thought to ANYBODY carrying a rifle over their shoulder or a handgun in a holster.

The second part of that is that punishment for murder would have to be swift. Immediate trials and either long-term hard labor or the death penalty.

It might sound like I'm advocating for a more violent future, but I would bet any increase in violence would be very limited.

(08-05-2019 08:44 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(08-04-2019 01:28 PM)cb4029 Wrote:  This is what happens when you tell people to go to radical off brand websites to get fake news. Thanks trump. Looks like your goofy civil war has started early. Maybe rep Omar was right.

FFS listen to yourself . Was Obama blamed for Sandy Hook? No. Likewise, it makes no sense to blame Trump for El Paso, etc. This is common sense. Both instances the perpetrator was a dick and obviously unhinged. No logical reason to blame wither POTUS.

Bingo. The media and the Left act as if these shooters represent typical people. These individuals are deranged lunatics, and some of the stuff coming about them shows that in the case of the two from this weekend were all over the place when it comes to the world view. Yet people want to assume because they owned guns and in the case of the guy in El Paso that he was a racist he had to be a Republican. More likely than not these guys supported anarchy, as opposed to a major political party.

The other thing is I can think of no other crime where a person's political leanings get intertwined with the act. What's next, are we going to start blaming a guy's DUI on Trump? White collar criminals?

(08-05-2019 08:44 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(08-04-2019 01:28 PM)cb4029 Wrote:  This is what happens when you tell people to go to radical off brand websites to get fake news. Thanks trump. Looks like your goofy civil war has started early. Maybe rep Omar was right.

FFS listen to yourself . Was Obama blamed for Sandy Hook? No. Likewise, it makes no sense to blame Trump for El Paso, etc. This is common sense. Both instances the perpetrator was a dick and obviously unhinged. No logical reason to blame either POTUS.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post...86cf225144

Quote:Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump blasted the Obama administration’s management of domestic terrorism threats Monday, blaming the president for Sunday's mass shooting in Orlando and tying those policies to his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton.

The celebrity real estate mogul, who has mobilized anxieties over domestic terrorism to great effect this election, said Monday during a speech here that "political correctness" and lax immigration laws have stifled efforts to combat radical jihadism. Those anxieties have been at the core of some of Trump’s most controversial proposals, including his call to temporarily ban all Muslims from entering the United States.

“Truly, our president doesn’t know what he’s doing. He’s failed us, and he’s failed us badly. And under his leadership, this situation will not get any better, it will only get worse, and I’ve been saying that for a long time,” Trump said during a speech at Saint Anselm College, which was billed as a major foreign-policy address.

Well ok..

Then why didn't Chicago Jesus do anything to curb the gun violence across the country while he was in office, I mean he won a Nobel Peace Prize for FFS for his radical ideas on peace and such..

I'll await your answer CB, or you can tuck tail and run like you normally do.. And please answer don't go off on a tangent or throw in whataboutism.

(08-05-2019 08:02 AM)Niner National Wrote:  

(08-05-2019 07:38 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  What could have stopped this crazy was someone legally armed. How does a person walk through a parking lot into a store carrying an AR without drawing attention?

I mean the cops shot him dead in under a minute. I doubt many armed citizens could do much better than that. The reality is, in a crowded space with any kind of semi auto or auto weapon you can do a lot of damage in seconds.

Only takes a fraction of a second to pull the trigger and you don't really have to aim to hit a target in a crowd.

I don't think more people with guns would have made much difference in this particular situation.

Yup. As bad as it was---Dayton could have been much worse. The guy was engaged and down in less than a minute. Thats about the fastest response time you can get. Thats what it looks like when law enforcement is already on the scene from the very start of the incident and engages the threat immediately (no hiding behind a concrete column awaiting backup like in Florida). Its also about the same response time you'd get from armed civilians. The difference is trained law enforcement was proficient enough to bring an assailant down despite the use of body armor----Im not so sure armed civilians would have had as much success in neutralizing the same threat that quickly. That said---they probably would have been effective enough to prevented the shooter from concentrating on killing unarmed civilians until trained law enforcement did arrive.

Concealed carry is probably our best defense against this type of violence simply because the shooter has no idea who is a threat to thwart his rampage and who is not. In fact--its exactly the same advantage these nuts use to commit these kinds of mass killings.

Trump couldn't even get the name of the city right...

What a ******* *******.