Displaying 1 - 10 of 266 Forum Posts1 2 3 4 5 Next
  • Feb 14, 2018 05:46 PM
    Last: 2yr
    2.4k
    Dockadams Wrote:

    We should all, especially me, believe a gun rights, right leaning columnist for faux news, ah ha.

    I should have been more specific in asking for proof, I should have asked for non biased proof. But, this is what to be expected from a gun hugger.

    You can’t win this by just making stuff up.

    But hey! Look at that! You acknowledged that it exist now. So before, it didn’t exist at all. Now it exist, but it’s “biased”? And that right there is why congress or anyone can’t agree on anything these days. People just blatantly lie, make stuff up, and ignore ALL facts that don’t push their opinion.

    Please prove that the research paper I posted is biased. Prove me wrong. It’s based on statistics. I find it hilarious you actually said that, considering the last LA link you posted is 100% an opinion article. It’s even categorized as such.

    You still didn’t answer my question.

    Did you SERIOUSLY just throw out the term “fake news”..... On an unbiased research paper. You do realize that that’s exactly what Trump and his team would say, right?

    I’m done with this conversation. And I feel like you should know the reasons:

    1. You can’t back up anything you say with stats.

    2. You refuse to answer simple questions.

    3. You are repeatedly contradicting yourself.

    4. You asked for proof. When provided the proof you say it doesn’t exist. Moments later you say it does exist, but it’s “fake news.”

    5. You resort to name calling like “asswipe, gun hugger” because you seem to be terrified that you ARE wrong. It is painfully obvious.

    All of these are strikingly similar to Trump’s technique. You may want to take a step back and reevaluate.

    You are wrong. Period. You can make up anything you want from here out. I will not respond until you have provided anything useful or even factual to the conversation.

    Just know that I provided detailed statistics, proof, etc, all while keeping an open mind and an adult conversation.

    You on the other hand, resorted to name calling, making stuff up, blatantly ignoring facts, contradicting yourself several times, not answering questions, and posting semi-related opinion articles.

    I genuinely hope that you broaden your knowledge on the subject one day. It’s never good to have the characteristics I posted above about any certain topic. See the White House.

  • Feb 14, 2018 05:46 PM
    Last: 2yr
    2.4k
    Dockadams Wrote:

    So, to pull or show a gun stopped your bad situation, marvelous, what? did someone threaten to beat your ass? Oh, that's a good reason to pull a gun on someone. Isn't that what happened with Zimmerman in Florida, a stand your ground thing? poor, just poor.

    Stats have ceased to exist since around 2010 or maybe before that, I think PEW research stopped doing it because congress cut funding for it.

    Only a person who needs a gun carries a gun.

    This LA Times article pretty much lays it out, good guys w/guns vs bad guys w/guns,

    latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-gu...

    "Oddly, given these combined statistics, nearly half of gun owners say they keep weapons because it makes them feel safer, a proportion that has increased dramatically since 1999 even though violent crime has been in a steady decline."

    No, we do not need guns in classrooms. We do not need more people carrying guns. Both are very bad ideas.

    The details of my personal situation don't matter. I told you that something happened, but having my firearm stopped the situation. No one got hurt, so it's a win. I didn't say anything about "someone threatening to kick my ass". Be careful, you just may be showing a bit of insecurity yourself. You can say it's "poor", as I'm not really sure what you mean by that. But how do you know? You have no details and I'm not going to share them. It could have been a robbery, a car jacking, a whatever. Why does your mind automatically go to, "oh, they were just wanting to kick their ass." You are just making stuff up again. Once again, your fixed, uninformed, and fictitious opinion is taking over in your response. Open your mind just a bit. Learn about what you're speaking on. It's not a bad thing to hear others out and learn from it.

    You say "stats have ceased to exist since 2010 or before"............. What? Now you're just blatantly ignoring facts. That's where things get dangerous. That's how we end up with a White House full of criminals. I just gave you an entire unbiased research dedicated to this exact topic from 2015, AND went ahead and pasted a quote from it, AND put it in bold.

    Where are you getting this information that statistics just.....stop? Here it is again. Please don't just ignore it or say that it isn't real this time.... Once again....Bullet point #7 summarizes this exact discussion.

    You said concealed carriers never are there to stop the bad guy. I 100% proved you wrong by providing a very, very, very small sample of proof. No response back from you on that.

    You said that I couldn't show proof and stats. I 100% proved you wrong by delivered statistics, research, and a few news stories on the topic. No response back from you on that.

    How many times do I have to ask you this one simple question:

    What would you do if you were in this exact situation? Locked down in a classroom/gas station/grocery store/whatever, when a gunman came in and was slowly picking people off. Now say a genie appeared and offered you a firearm. Would you accept the firearm or not?

    It's getting very obvious that you're afraid to answer the question. I think it's because you may, just maybe, see my point in the question. Scary right? To think about something in more than just your point of view. That is called growth. We would get absolutely nowhere if everyone was close minded about everything. For instance, I am a ccw that also wants stricter gun laws, banning certain firearms, etc.

    Since you seem to not want to acknowledge that I proved you wrong or answer direct questions to anything, I'll make it straight forward. Go ahead and Ignore all the above. Please respond back to:

    The one question I've now asked you three times. (you oddly forgot to answer that 3 times in a row)

    You asked me to PROVE that firearm carriers are sometimes there at the right time. So I did. (you said there was none)

    The statistics I provided on concealed carriers. You asked me to PROVE this with statistics, so I did. And yet, your only response is that it doesn't exist? Nope. It does. You're wrong. You can't just deny it because you don't like it.

  • Feb 14, 2018 05:46 PM
    Last: 2yr
    2.4k
    Dockadams Wrote:
    Oh paaaaleeese, none of these ccw or open carry asswipes are never, ever, in the right place at the right time. Furthermore, please show me and this forum some statistics that PROVE that good people with guns stop bad guys or bad people with guns. I'll give you a clue, there aren't any, as in, there aren't any of those situations. If there is or if there are, it's only once or a few a year. Please show some stats that prove more guns would be the answer to gun problems. There ain't none of those either, except a higher rate of self inflicted homicides and suicides, and domestic argument shootings. The answer is not more guns, and it most certainly is not having armed people in schools, malls, and stores.

    I used to frequent a local laundry to wash my clothes, the proprietor's buddy was in the business establishment on a daily basis, he is a CCW person, it is evident by the large bulge under his t shirt. I approached him once and asked him why he carries a firearm, his answer was simplistic, as most people who carry openly or concealed, it was "because I can". What a ridiculous reason for wanting to carry a gun.

    There are quite a few of these per year though:

    detroit.cbslocal.com/2013/12/27/man-gra...

    "Authorities say a Livingston County man accidentally shot himself while shopping at a home improvement store with the gun he was legally carrying.

    The incident happened around 6 p.m. Thursday at the Home Depot in Brighton, near I-96 and Grand River Avenue.

    Police say the 32-year-old Green Oak Township man, who was not named, was apparently reaching into his pocket for his wallet when he inadvertently grabbed his pistol and a shot fired, striking him in the buttocks."

    Please try to keep the discussion respectful. Blanketing an entire group of people, including myself as a ccw, as "asswipes" looks childish and doesn't help the conversation at all.

    You are all over the place with your arguments so I'll try to respond to each one. "PROVE that good people with guns stop bad guys or bad people with guns." To me, I can only help but to point directly at the police and military. They do this every single day. That's not a secret or a statistic that I need to provide.

    Now, maybe you meant to prove that ccw's and/or open carriers stop bad guys. As for open carriers, I told you in my last response, "Who are you to say that he/she hasn't "stopped eeeevil" before? Do you know for sure that that person wasn't in the right place at the right time when an attacker called it off because they saw someone was armed? It's a small chance, but it's still a chance. You or I couldn't possibly know that."

    As for concealed carriers, I have first hand experience with having to pull my firearm only once. It may or may not have exactly saved my life, but was able to stop the situation and nobody got hurt, so I call that a win. But lets disregard my own and ALL of the other personal stories like mine because, you know, I guess they don't count?? I'm not sure how you came up with your, "there aren't good people who carry firearms that stop bad people." It's actually a little mind blowing to me that you think that's true. But for the sake of your argument:

    2016: Concealed carrier stops mass shooting. Right place at the right time? I just can't see how that is possible. You specifically said that doesn't happen.

    2016: Note that the man that took down the "bad guy" actually trains concealed carriers for this exact situation. But you're right, he's just an "asswipe". You absolutely know better than him and the people he saved.

    2017: Not a concealed carrier, just had a firearm at the right time. But again, how could that possibly be? You said it never happens?

    2018: Concealed carrier saves police officer.

    2017: Concealed carrier stops robbery and shooter at mall.

    2017: Conealed carrier shoots robber aiming weapon at his family.

    I could post a ton of those, but I honestly don't think you care about them. You seem to think of normal occurrences as just fantasy. And yes, they are normal occurrences in many areas. It just may not be normal right where you live. So how about research straight from the Crime Prevention Research Center regarding this exact topic? Will that help? Just straight up, non-biased research. Maybe that will shed some light.

    Concealed Carry Permit Holders Across the United States

    Straight from that report: Bullet point #7 of the Summary- Between 2007 and 2014, murder rates have fallen from 5.6 to 4.2 (preliminary estimates) per 100,000. This represents a 25% drop in the murder rate at the same time that the percentage of the adult population with permits soared by 178%. Overall violent crime also fell by 25 percent over that period of time.

    Once again, I am confused. You said there would be, "higher rate of self inflicted homicides and suicides, and domestic argument shootings." But according the the stats, which you said "there ain't none", that's not true. So do these stories and actual research/stats put your absolutely for sure logic into question?

    And now on to you responding to things that I didn't even say. I never said more guns = better. Never. In fact, just a few pages back I said that certain guns should be banned completely. I also said there should be even stricter gun laws for gun owners, ccw's, carriers, etc. I never said more guns is better. That is your opinion taking over in your response. Not every gun owner wants more guns. That is the naive part. Most gun owners want certain firearms banned, stricter gun laws, etc, just like non-gun owners.

    There you go. I answered all of your questions and gave you what you asked for, which you said doesn't exist. Now please do me the favor of answering my one question to you that I actually put in bold: What would you do if you were in this exact situation? Locked down in a classroom/gas station/grocery store/whatever, when a gunman came in and was slowly picking people off. Now say a genie appeared and offered you a firearm. Would you accept the firearm or not? This is obviously hypothetical, but I think it's a very fair question. Seems like you are afraid to even think of that scenario simply because you have an opinion. This is a normal occurrence for a lot of people. Not everything is as easy as just having an opinion as simple as "those people are asswipes."

  • Feb 14, 2018 05:46 PM
    Last: 2yr
    2.4k
    TJ Wrote: Eye rolls are protected by the 1st amendment. Enjoy your feeling of safety while you're armed.

    You're absolutely right, TJ. Just as firearms are protected by the 2nd.

    As for, "enjoy your feeling of safety while you're armed". I sense sarcasm in that statement, so I'll respond as such. I've never understood the "if you carry a firearm, concealed or not, you're insecure or looking for trouble" point of view. Seems very ignorant to me. Not that that's exactly what you said, but it seems to be in the same thread.

    Let me be absolutely clear:

    I do not carry for enjoyment.

    I do not carry to be the hero.

    I do not carry to be tough. Actually quite the opposite, as a ccw license comes with strict "stay out of all trouble" rules.

    I do not carry to tell/make known to others around me, ever.

    I DO carry to protect myself and/or family if the instance ever calls for it. Which again, let me be perfectly clear, I do not ever want to be a part of. I'm not sure where you're from TJ, I sincerely hope it's somewhere nice that has never seen a day of trouble. But it was not always nice for my family and I growing up in Dallas TX. One (out of many) stories is a long string of gang initiations about 10 years ago. They would pull up to you at a red light and bump your car, just so you'd get out. They'd then kill you just for credit. This was happening all over the DFW. It also happened to my cousin on the highway. When he got out of the car to check for damages, they robbed him and slit his throat. Having a firearm on him would have given him a much higher chance to save his life. There is absolutely no denying that.

    So where is the line for you, TJ? If this was happening in your town right now and you have the opportunity to protect your self and family by doing something that is 100% legal, would you? And remember, it's happening all around you. It's happened to some of your family already. Are you really telling me you would have to be insecure to carry a firearm with all of this happening around you? What would you do? Sarcastic one-liners or saying people shouldn't have guns won't help your situation at all.

  • Feb 14, 2018 05:46 PM
    Last: 2yr
    2.4k
    Dockadams Wrote:
    Meh, my Walmart already has one of those prowlers, you'll see him occasionally walking about the aisles with his second amendment strapped on his hip, he ain't a cop, he ain't a security guard, he ain't paid by anyone, he's just a dickhead showing everyone who sees him to not fuck with him or anyone in the store, because he's there to stop eeeevil. LOL. Look for more of that since Lepieeere came out and said the only thing that stops a bad guy wit a gun is a good guy wit a gun, yeah, right, like the security guard in Florida who stood by while the school was being shot to hell. /eyeroll

    This is incredibly naive.

    "he's just a dickhead showing everyone who sees him to not fuck with him or anyone in the store, because he's there to stop eeeevil. LOL."

    First of all, a large majority of CCW (conceal carriers) DO NOT like open carry, including myself. We generally see it as showing off and unnecessary. But that doesn't mean they are all "dickheads". They are legally exercising their right to do so. Just as you exercise your right to do whatever you want today. Do you fear the "dickheads" open carrying? Are they causing you bodily harm? I would assume probably not. Because it's NOT the open carriers that are going on these shooting sprees. Yes, they may look silly sometimes, but who cares?

    Who are you to say that he/she hasn't "stopped eeeevil" before? Do you know for sure that that person wasn't in the right place at the right time when an attacker called it off because they saw someone was armed? It's a small chance, but it's still a chance. You or I couldn't possibly know that. So why make fun of them?

    What would you do if you were in this exact situation? Locked down in a classroom/gas station/grocery store/whatever, when a gunman came in and was slowly picking people off. Now say a genie appeared and offered you a firearm. Would you accept the firearm or not? This is obviously hypothetical, but I think it's a very fair question. Sounds to me like you wouldn't take the firearm because you wouldn't want to look stupid or you'd rather wait for someone else to figure it out.

    The security guard at the school was a coward. He should have helped. But just because he didn't help does NOT mean all other security guards, police officers, concealed carriers, open carriers would do the same. There have been many cases where a security guard or ccw has saved lives by simply pulling their firearm. And oh yeah, there's also been maybe one or two cases where police have used their firearms to take down gunmen and saved lives. But who cares about that, right? According to you, anyone carrying a firearm is grouped in with this security guard. Lets just ignore facts and stick with LOLs and /eyerolls.

  • Feb 14, 2018 05:46 PM
    Last: 2yr
    2.4k
    Dutch Wrote:

    No, did people here ever learned the "cause and effect" rule? The cause is as was stated by Schmidt that "guns" should not be in the hands of disturbed people, neither should they be sold to civilians, like in other civilized countries. Like I said so many times the "second amendment" does not apply to the guns we have now but only to guns they had when this "amendment" was written; like "flintlocks". If people can't figure that out in this stupid country then I give up on the "brains" here.

    Thus clean up the cause; band aids as protecting schools is putting the horse behind the wagon. As well cost again a fortune; education here has no priority; the army has instead. The world laughs at us, with our unbelievable nutty laws and non-laws.

    Look at the list I published of how "corrupt" this country is; all of the GOP is in "bed" with the NRA and no one "blinks"

    Saying these things does absolutely nothing to solve the problem. You can say that the U.S. is stupid. You can say that you "give up on the brains here". You can say the U.S. has nutty laws. You can say the world laughs at us. But it does nothing to help the current situation.

    And no matter how many words you put in bold, you are wrong about the second amendment. It absolutely does apply to today's firearms. I don't agree with certain aspects of it, but it does. I don’t see any reason for a person to own an assault rifle, other than recreational and hobby purposes. Even then, I still don't think civilians should own them. They're just too militarized of a weapon. But they are legal.

    And to your "clean up the cause":

    Saying that figuring out a way to (band aid) protect schools in the meantime, perhaps with armed guards/staff, would be putting the horse behind the wagon is silly. By that logic, we shouldn't discuss ways to protect our schools at all because the problem is already here? The problem is here. No name calling, finger pointing, or figuring out which politicians are corrupt is going to fix that. Saying that the second amendment only applies to firearms of the time won't fix it. The guns are legal today and are doing harm, unfortunately.

    We can all stand up and shout at the top of our lungs that we want the laws changed and/or ban these guns. But what will that accomplish? Our own government is at a point that it no longer cares about "the people". There have been unprecedented mass shootings, protests, millions of people saying they want them banned, but nothing has been done to stop it. So when you say that the constitution is stupid and that guns shouldn't be in civilian hands, do you honestly think that helps or will happen before the next mass shooting?

    Here are some obvious steps in the right direction:

    Guns should not be possessed by a person with mental health issues, period.

    Assault riffles are too militarized for civilians, so ban them.

    Implement much more rigorous background checks and ownership rules.

    But according to the facts, this is the 18th mass shooting in 2018. That's almost two a week. So let's say by some act of god any of those began being discussed TODAY by congress. Do you honestly think (by the 2 a week numbers) that ANY of those would be discussed, hashed out, agreed upon and implemented before the next mass shooting? Congress can't even agree if our air needs to be clean. Do you really think they will agree on something as controversial as this in any sort of decent time? It’s absolutely pathetic, but it’s true.

    And I should clarify that I am not saying political steps are obsolete. We 100% need changes throughout our entire political system. It's in an absolutely horrible position right now that isn't benefiting the county or its people whatsoever. But simply blaming politicians, saying everything and everyone is stupid, saying guns are bad or yelling to change gun laws does nothing in the meantime.

  • Feb 14, 2018 05:46 PM
    Last: 2yr
    2.4k
    Schmidt Wrote:

    We have discussed this topic before. I for one would not allow my child to go to a school where the teachers are armed. Here's an extract from a Time magazine article: Ready, Fire, Aim: The Science Behind Police Shooting Bystanders

    "According to a 2008 RAND Corporation study evaluating the New York Police Department’s firearm training, between 1998 and 2006, the average hit rate during gunfights was just 18 percent. When suspects did not return fire, police officers hit their targets 30 percent of the time

    In a crowded hallway with kids running in all directions and screaming, I would expect that an armed guard would hit the suspect 18 percent of the time and more likely take down a few students in the process.

    My opinion...

    Youre absolutely right, Schmidt. The percentage is low. I’d expect even lower numbers when it’s a total surprise and not just an every day threat, like what police officers have. But if ‘Teacher A’ has a firearm in a locked down classroom when the shooter is coming into the door, the odds are much better for hitting the target and no one else.

    But my point isn’t that they will be able to hit their mark. My point is that a shooter will most likely think twice about even trying. They will know that there IS armed staff at the school. That means they are less likely to succeed and are more likely to be met with someone who is trained for this exact scenario.

    This is a big pro for police officers carrying firearms. The knowledge that the other person has a firearm keeps many at bay. Not that that’s always a good thing, but I’m sure you know what I mean.

    It would be really interesting to see what would happen if it was announced that schools had these “secret armed” that I was referring to. And maybe posted a sign at the entrance that it was among the schools that have them. But NOT actually have them. Basically like a fake security camera.

  • Feb 14, 2018 05:46 PM
    Last: 2yr
    2.4k

    I guessWhat can be done to stop the next school shooting? 18 shootings in 9 weeks demands action now. Put armed police or armed servicemen in schools now and start training for permanent armed replacements now.

    Chet, what you propose is a "police State" as in Russia. As well is only a "band aid" which does not attack the "cause". Let's be honest: the system here is screwed up all the way, but the "corruption" here stops it from being fixed.

    That’s not a “police state”. It may be a feature of a police state, but it in itself is far from it.

    We have armed security at concerts, grocery stores, malls, cops, military, etc, etc. but that doesn’t make the U.S. a police state. And I should mention that I believe that the U.S. is/has been dangerously close to a police state before/currently. But having outsourced or school staff trained and possessing a firearm at school doesn’t make it so.

    This situation is unprecedented. To me, it requires unprecedented action.

    I think it would be a good idea to have schools interview and check for 1 or two teachers/staff that fit the profile of a “secret armed”. Meaning they would unknowingly interview certain staff for this profile. Once decided, they would have the staff members trained thoroughly with the firearm. The firearm would stay in a hidden safe inside the classroom that only the staff member and the principal would have access too, on both sides of the school. No other staff or students would know which staff members have the firearm. That is important, due to it is normally a current or ex student.

    We can all argue that this problem is because of x, y, z, but that does absolutely nothing. We need to get proper defenses in schools first and foremost. Trying to ban all guns and/or arguing mental health gets us nowhere. We’ve all seen that.

    Saying that armed staff is just a “bandaid” is not true. It could absolutely be the fix. We don’t know until we try. A shooter is much more likely to think twice about doing this if he has to go up against people trained with and possessing firearms. That second thought is incredibly potent.

    It may just be a bandaid, as you say. But it’s much better to have a bandaid than to just bleed out. All while yelling out what everyone thinks the “cause” is.

  • Feb 14, 2018 05:46 PM
    Last: 2yr
    2.4k
    no that was not was i was saying.
    Care to enlighten me?
  • Feb 14, 2018 05:46 PM
    Last: 2yr
    2.4k
    wwjd Wrote:

    Schools could have "Gun" drills, but that would only mean that the student shooter would know exact what is going to happen once the "Gun" alarm is triggered. In this case, he used the fire alarm drilled to get students start exiting the classrooms.

    Over on Fox News: "See, this is why we need to make it mandatory that all school staff carry guns"

    me: "wouldn't mace, a stun gun, take down training, etc be better options'

    That doesn't make any sense. The entire point of having the drills are to train both teachers and students how to react to a situation such as this, just like a fire alarm. Saying "gun drills would only mean the shooter would know...." implies that no one should be trained for any situation because it could be used in another way.

    I have yet to see or hear of a gun drill that instructs people to walk out into the halls, let alone show their presence at all. It instructs teachers to account for all students, shut and lock the door, block the windows, and get everyone underneath their desks and out of sight. This is the exact opposite of a fire alarm.

    By your thought process above we shouldn't train for fire alarms either, because of this exact situation. But it just doesn't make sense. Training is necessary.

    And to, "wouldn't mace, stun gun, take down training, be better options". You say that as if you know that they are better options. They both are, and are not. It depends on the situation. You can't say without a doubt that any of those would be better defense than a firearm. A firearm has a much greater distance than any of those, so you'd think it would be the best defensively, but needs a trained eye for it to be useful.

    I went to a school that had stabbings, shootings, other violence, quite frequently. They ended up placing 1 cop for 2 days a week, and armed staff the other 3 days. The weapons violence stopped immediately. Not that this is the cure all, but doing this cured our school simply because there was armed staff. No one wanted to use weapons violence anymore because it meant they were susceptible to it themselves.

    Having staff (1 or 100, teacher or outsourced) trained and possessing a firearm on campus is absolutely better than not having any at all. And yes, you can say that cops are trained soo much more than citizens, but they aren't. Yes, they go through training. No, it's not as rigorous as some bring up when having this conversation. I have logged many, many more hours training with my firearm than any of my police officer friends have with theirs.

    Yes, it's horrible that it's come to this. But training is now a must. Whether it be with a firearm, mace, or stun gun. Something needs to stand in the way or create a thought of fear before or when this happens.