St Loius Police Chief says time to end "gun free" lunacy

page: 6
39
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by alldaylong

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by alldaylong

You really do live in cloud cuckoo land. There is no deterrent for a lunatic. You expect them to think the same as you and i. I have news for you. They don't. These fruitcakes expect to die through their actions, in fact i would go as far as saying that they probably crave it.


You're right. So would you rather they be killed right away or in about 20 minutes?


You may have overlooked this:-

www.highbeam.com...


Overlooked what?

Are you just trying to find any situation where a teacher or guard armed with a firearm couldnt do anything to stop an assailant as a far away sniper?

You really want to play this game? You give me a sniper or a bomber and I give you a close attacker or a DGU?

Why not just say that you'd prefer a lunatic to rampage freely for 20 minutes killing cowering children rather than stop him right away?


I challenge you to withdraw that insult. Otherwise i will report to Mods.




posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by alldaylong

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by alldaylong

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by alldaylong

You really do live in cloud cuckoo land. There is no deterrent for a lunatic. You expect them to think the same as you and i. I have news for you. They don't. These fruitcakes expect to die through their actions, in fact i would go as far as saying that they probably crave it.


You're right. So would you rather they be killed right away or in about 20 minutes?


You may have overlooked this:-

www.highbeam.com...


Overlooked what?

Are you just trying to find any situation where a teacher or guard armed with a firearm couldnt do anything to stop an assailant as a far away sniper?

You really want to play this game? You give me a sniper or a bomber and I give you a close attacker or a DGU?

Why not just say that you'd prefer a lunatic to rampage freely for 20 minutes killing cowering children rather than stop him right away?


I challenge you to withdraw that insult. Otherwise i will report to Mods.


It's a direct question and I'm extrapolating your response since you refuse to answer.

Report it if you want.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by alldaylong
The people who carry out these crimes are mentally ill. They nearly always end up killing themselves. They won't be afraid if teachers have guns, because they want to die anyway.
You are all missing the blindingly obvious.



Every single one of those situations ended as soon as an armed good guy showed up, either by surrender or suicide. Having someone armed on the premesis will end the problem much, much sooner.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


It HAS to be wrong to put yet more guns into society. It will surely just compound the problem. The US Mental Health System has to be made aware of people who are a danger to society much sooner than is the case. Surely treatment is better than amputation is it not?



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by alldaylong
The people who carry out these crimes are mentally ill. They nearly always end up killing themselves. They won't be afraid if teachers have guns, because they want to die anyway.
You are all missing the blindingly obvious.



Every single one of those situations ended as soon as an armed good guy showed up, either by surrender or suicide. Having someone armed on the premesis will end the problem much, much sooner.


Yes but some people seem to have this silly idea in their heads that if we make guns illegal across the board that criminal minds will not have them either. So in following that logic we are not disarming innocent people but just the murderous ones, somehow.

I am not quite sure in which reality this would occur but if i find out i will post its location in this very thread.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by alldaylong
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


It HAS to be wrong to put yet more guns into society. It will surely just compound the problem. The US Mental Health System has to be made aware of people who are a danger to society much sooner than is the case. Surely treatment is better than amputation is it not?


Because it just HAS to be wrong , right ?


Like i said just now , all your doing is removing legitimate protection from licensed people. Criminals will carry guns no matter what but do them a favor and disarm their targets ok.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by alldaylong
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


It HAS to be wrong to put yet more guns into society. It will surely just compound the problem. The US Mental Health System has to be made aware of people who are a danger to society much sooner than is the case. Surely treatment is better than amputation is it not?


One would suggest that permitting qualified, law abiding, citizens who already have licenses to carry a pistol in their state to carry in their place of work, be it a school or hospital, IS treatment. Rather than banning antibiotics because some people have allergies to them, we use them appropriately instead.

Why does if "have" to be wrong to put more guns into society? (Actually that is not the proposal, there already are guns in society and this wouldn't put any more in, just permit the law abiding more legal alternatives).

Of course the mental services need to get back to the leeway they had before Jimmy Carter restricted the ability to commit a dangerous mental case.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rubic0n

Originally posted by alldaylong
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


It HAS to be wrong to put yet more guns into society. It will surely just compound the problem. The US Mental Health System has to be made aware of people who are a danger to society much sooner than is the case. Surely treatment is better than amputation is it not?


Because it just HAS to be wrong , right ?


Like i said just now , all your doing is removing legitimate protection from licensed people. Criminals will carry guns no matter what but do them a favor and disarm their targets ok.


I deplore the very thought of any human being having to carry a firearm.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by alldaylong

Originally posted by Rubic0n

Originally posted by alldaylong
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


It HAS to be wrong to put yet more guns into society. It will surely just compound the problem. The US Mental Health System has to be made aware of people who are a danger to society much sooner than is the case. Surely treatment is better than amputation is it not?


Because it just HAS to be wrong , right ?


Like i said just now , all your doing is removing legitimate protection from licensed people. Criminals will carry guns no matter what but do them a favor and disarm their targets ok.


I deplore the very thought of any human being having to carry a firearm.


"Having" to carry a firearm? So do I. I would love to live in a world where there was no crime, no violence, no war, no rape, no genocide, no dictators, no murder, no theft...but we don't. We never have had utopia and we never will. Since we will never, ever, have such a society, it is imperative for good, law abiding people to posess the means of self defense and self determination.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 04:22 PM
link   
Is there any sort of state funded healthcare that will look after people who possibly are a risk or is that sort of thing reserved for a funeral fund for when someone shoots them dead when a few hours of talk may of saved them from killing others and getting themselves killed? or is that too much for certain political views who'd rather wait until the person does something wrong and then kill them ...



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxatoria
 


How long do you talk to the guy killing twenty kids? Five kids? Ten kids? Do we keep talking at 15 kids? He might just stop after all if only you'd say the right thing.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by alldaylong

Originally posted by Rubic0n

Originally posted by alldaylong
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


It HAS to be wrong to put yet more guns into society. It will surely just compound the problem. The US Mental Health System has to be made aware of people who are a danger to society much sooner than is the case. Surely treatment is better than amputation is it not?


Because it just HAS to be wrong , right ?


Like i said just now , all your doing is removing legitimate protection from licensed people. Criminals will carry guns no matter what but do them a favor and disarm their targets ok.


I deplore the very thought of any human being having to carry a firearm.


"Having" to carry a firearm? So do I. I would love to live in a world where there was no crime, no violence, no war, no rape, no genocide, no dictators, no murder, no theft...but we don't. We never have had utopia and we never will. Since we will never, ever, have such a society, it is imperative for good, law abiding people to posess the means of self defense and self determination.


Here in the UK some criminals do carry guns. However the ordinary man in the street does not own a gun, have a gun in their home, car or handbag. It does not make us fell any less safe because we don't own guns. Here the difference lies between the UK and the US.
edit on 18-12-2012 by alldaylong because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


You try and talk to the guy before he goes nuts and that's seen as a good thing over here maybe over in the states you just shoot em first and sort out the problems later



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maxatoria
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


You try and talk to the guy before he goes nuts and that's seen as a good thing over here maybe over in the states you just shoot em first and sort out the problems later


Watch what you are saying because "Thisguyisright" will accuse you of wanting to see children gunned down. Some Americans think the answer to gun crime is to put yet more guns into the system.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by alldaylong

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by alldaylong

Originally posted by Rubic0n

Originally posted by alldaylong
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


It HAS to be wrong to put yet more guns into society. It will surely just compound the problem. The US Mental Health System has to be made aware of people who are a danger to society much sooner than is the case. Surely treatment is better than amputation is it not?


Because it just HAS to be wrong , right ?


Like i said just now , all your doing is removing legitimate protection from licensed people. Criminals will carry guns no matter what but do them a favor and disarm their targets ok.


I deplore the very thought of any human being having to carry a firearm.


"Having" to carry a firearm? So do I. I would love to live in a world where there was no crime, no violence, no war, no rape, no genocide, no dictators, no murder, no theft...but we don't. We never have had utopia and we never will. Since we will never, ever, have such a society, it is imperative for good, law abiding people to posess the means of self defense and self determination.


Here in the UK some criminals do carry guns. However the ordinary man in the street does not own a gun, have a gun in their home, car or handbag. It does not make us fell any less same because we don't own guns. Here the difference lies between the UK and the US.


I don't understand your point. I do not know what you mean by "fell any less same". "Feel any less safe?" Feeling and actually being are two different things, yes? Some people feel that some risk is acceptable. I bet that there are plenty of places in London or Liverpool or Manchester or Swansea that you would feel quiet unsafe in.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by alldaylong

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by alldaylong

Originally posted by Rubic0n

Originally posted by alldaylong
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


It HAS to be wrong to put yet more guns into society. It will surely just compound the problem. The US Mental Health System has to be made aware of people who are a danger to society much sooner than is the case. Surely treatment is better than amputation is it not?


Because it just HAS to be wrong , right ?


Like i said just now , all your doing is removing legitimate protection from licensed people. Criminals will carry guns no matter what but do them a favor and disarm their targets ok.


I deplore the very thought of any human being having to carry a firearm.


"Having" to carry a firearm? So do I. I would love to live in a world where there was no crime, no violence, no war, no rape, no genocide, no dictators, no murder, no theft...but we don't. We never have had utopia and we never will. Since we will never, ever, have such a society, it is imperative for good, law abiding people to posess the means of self defense and self determination.


Here in the UK some criminals do carry guns. However the ordinary man in the street does not own a gun, have a gun in their home, car or handbag. It does not make us fell any less same because we don't own guns. Here the difference lies between the UK and the US.


I don't understand your point. I do not know what you mean by "fell any less same". "Feel any less safe?" Feeling and actually being are two different things, yes? Some people feel that some risk is acceptable. I bet that there are plenty of places in London or Liverpool or Manchester or Swansea that you would feel quiet unsafe in.


How many of your friends, relatives, co workers, etc have been a victim of crime? I have not known any of mine who have been a victim of crime. And let me tell you i have been on this Earth a fair few number of years, I can walk the streets in safety. Or maybe i am just naive.
edit on 18-12-2012 by alldaylong because: (no reason given)
edit on 18-12-2012 by alldaylong because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swordbeast
reply to post by cripmeister
 



My argument is this: more guns = more gun violence. If you can't grasp this simple logic I am sorry.


If this argument were true, Switzerland would be in a state of Civil war. See here why
Yet this is clearly not the case, despite the very ready availability of military, fully automatic service rifles in Swiss households


The topic is not Switzerland, it's America. Also you left out the reason for so many weapons in Switzerland and how they are regulated. If Fridays mass murder of small children isn't evidence enough that America has a major problem with firearms I don't know what is.


Also, the Idea that the tragedy could have avoided by simply denying him access to guns is, imho, whishful thinking at its worst. Yes, the amount of casualties might have differed with alternate means of wreaking havoc, but but the goal should be to avoid such tragedies, not to "manage" them or to lower the amount of casualties to "acceptable levels".


The boy was a weakling so he wouldn't have gotten very far with anything other than what he used, except for maybe explosives. If he had access to handgranades he probably would have used those instead, luckily he didn't have access to them.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by alldaylong

Originally posted by Maxatoria
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


You try and talk to the guy before he goes nuts and that's seen as a good thing over here maybe over in the states you just shoot em first and sort out the problems later


Watch what you are saying because "Thisguyisright" will accuse you of wanting to see children gunned down. Some Americans think the answer to gun crime is to put yet more guns into the system.


Statistically speaking in counties with higher rates of gun ownership there is less crime. Kennesaw, Georgia for example.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by angrysniper

Originally posted by alldaylong

Originally posted by Maxatoria
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


You try and talk to the guy before he goes nuts and that's seen as a good thing over here maybe over in the states you just shoot em first and sort out the problems later


Watch what you are saying because "Thisguyisright" will accuse you of wanting to see children gunned down. Some Americans think the answer to gun crime is to put yet more guns into the system.


Statistically speaking in counties with higher rates of gun ownership there is less crime. Kennesaw, Georgia for example.


Correlation does not imply causation, other factors are most likely at play.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by alldaylong
Anyone in the US who applies for a gun license needs to have a written testimony from their Doctor to say they are of sound mind, and that should be updated every few years.



As a theoretical matter, I would fully support that. In practice, however, it opens the patient up to the political biases of the doctor. If the doctor is strictly anti-gun, you're screwed. And that's exactly what would happen to a lot of perfectly sane, responsible people, too.

I think it might also run into constitutional issues over the right to privacy, due process and the principle of a legal presumption of innocence.





new topics
top topics
 
39
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join