More "Good Guys with Guns" not a Solution: Have Your Say

page: 1
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 22 2013 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Source: NBC article



National Rifle Association leader Wayne LaPierre argued on NBC’s Meet the Press that “there weren’t enough good guys with guns" to confront the shooter responsible for last week's Washington Navy Yard rampage and he insisted that "when the good guys with guns got there, it stopped.”


However, more "good guys with guns" is potentially counter-productive as increases the likelihood of these tragedies when one of the "good guys" goes through a phase and snaps.

Additionally, more "good guys with guns" would create the atmosphere of a military state and likely increase corruption.



In his appearance on Meet the Press last December LaPierre warned that, “We have a mental health system in this country that has completely and totally collapsed. We have no national database of these lunatics.”


Heightened database record-keeping brings the U.S. closer to a security state where everyone is under surveillance. Perhaps only those who choose to exercise their Constitutional right to bear arms should be in a database ensuring the privacy of those who opt out of getting a firearm.

edit on 22-9-2013 by MysteriousHusky because: webpage snapshot




posted on Sep, 22 2013 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by MysteriousHusky
 

While I do agree with him here, I dont like LaPierre. He's flipflopped on issues not to mention that the NRA has actually supported gun control in the past.

That having been said, he's right about an armed citizenry. This is the most effective way to reduce crime.

Lets be clear about something. Being ARMED, owning guns, isnt a privilege; its a RIGHT, just like any other RIGHT.

Tired of seeing people trying to justify gun ownership. Its a right, plain and simple. The government doesnt have any authority to infringe on this right, NONE whatsoever.

Yes, some people will abuse/misuse their rights (with or without a gun) and should be held accountable.

The right to speak freely, to be safe in your person, a right to the fruits of your labor, due process etc.

Does the government have a database on people who exercise their first amendment rights? Yes they do but they shouldnt. They have compiled every type of list from war protestors to online posters.

They want a database on gun owners.

>>JUST NO



posted on Sep, 22 2013 @ 05:40 PM
link   

gladtobehere
Lets be clear about something. Being ARMED, owning guns, isnt a privilege; its a RIGHT, just like any other RIGHT.


Then why would a smart company like Starbucks risk infringing on said "right" ? See:
An Open Letter from Howard Schultz, ceo of Starbucks Coffee Company



For these reasons, today we are respectfully requesting that customers no longer bring firearms into our stores or outdoor seating areas—even in states where “open carry” is permitted—unless they are authorized law enforcement personnel.



posted on Sep, 22 2013 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by MysteriousHusky
 

However, more "good guys with guns" is potentially counter-productive as increases the likelihood of these tragedies when one of the "good guys" goes through a phase and snaps.

It seems to me that if a "good guy" goes through a phase and snaps, he or she will find a way to wreak havoc whether this "good guy" is currently carrying a gun or not.
However, if this "good guy" is surrounded by other individuals who are armed and trained, it's possible he could be stopped more quickly.

I lived for several years in northern AZ where almost everyone was carrying a firearm, violent crime was almost non existent.



posted on Sep, 22 2013 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by tanda7
 


Rural or city? And if city was the city's size small, moderate, or supersized? Size does matter.
edit on 22-9-2013 by MysteriousHusky because: grammar



posted on Sep, 22 2013 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by MysteriousHusky
 

What? Starbucks is a private business...

Why are you derailing your own thread?



posted on Sep, 22 2013 @ 05:51 PM
link   

MysteriousHusky
Then why would a smart company like Starbucks risk infringing on said "right" ?

They're not "infringing". It's private property, so they can do as they please. It's no different than you asking a friend not to bring his gun with him to your house when he comes over because it makes you uncomfortable.

Private property is different than public property.



posted on Sep, 22 2013 @ 05:53 PM
link   
Everyone is quick to demonize any thought for a solution WITHOUT OFFERING a reasonable, workable, achievable, and non-utopian society alternative.

1. Guns have been in the world for many hundreds of years and will never, ever not be a part of the world.

2. There will always be an underground sub-culture of scum that has unfettered access to obtaining such guns. This sub-culture of scum has existed since man existed and will forever.

3. Unless you want armed guards every 10 square feet over the entire country, 24/7/365, which is impossible to afford, only good guys with guns can stop bad guys with guns.

4. I will entertain any alternative that is reasonable, AND workable, AND achievable because we will never exist in a utopian society no matter how badly we want that to be true.



posted on Sep, 22 2013 @ 05:55 PM
link   

_BoneZ_

Private property is different than public property.



Okay, let's take streets for example.

Streets bordering a park > Most of us would say public.

What about streets that are extensions of businesses? Surely all streets are public, but we increasingly live in a world dominated by private interests. Hence some folks may have trouble selling Lemonade if they live in the city but don't have a backyard for example.

Point is, at what point does private interest become public interest?

If public opinion shifted so that 60% were to advocate a similar policy as Starbucks would public streets reflect the will of the public? Food for thought.



posted on Sep, 22 2013 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by MysteriousHusky
 


Mass shootings in GUN FREE ZONES.
No mass shootings at GUN SHOWS.

More guns = safer place.




Have your say



posted on Sep, 22 2013 @ 05:58 PM
link   
Wow..... I have just ONE sentiment for the NRA.



.....It's ugly when Obama exploits death for political gain. It's NO BETTER when toads like those running the modern NRA do it. In fact, it's really worse in some ways.

Sometimes I'd pay the NRA more to shut up and go away than I ever paid them to be a member.



posted on Sep, 22 2013 @ 06:01 PM
link   

MysteriousHusky
reply to post by tanda7
 


Rural or city? And if city was the city's size small, moderate, or supersized? Size does matter.
edit on 22-9-2013 by MysteriousHusky because: grammar
Although my property is very rural, the crime stats for all of northern AZ will reflect a below average violent crime rate.
I never carried a firearm into town but I must admit, going to the grocery store and seeing the manager of the meat dept. greet me with a .357 hanging from his belt was comforting. Or stopping by the gas station and seeing 6 or 8 cowboys standing around with revolvers on their hips. I felt very safe there.

I've been in bars in Williams AZ, population 10K maybe, where patrons are allowed to open carry.
In Williams it's also legal to have a fist fight in public, it's customary to call the police and once the police arrive, they witness the combat to insure no weapons are allowed and no one is to drunk to defend themselves.
I never heard of anyone being shot because of drugs or "street" crime , or some guy "snapped" in Williams. Lots of bored cops in Williams, they get excited over noise complaints.



posted on Sep, 22 2013 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by MysteriousHusky
 


Sometimes having a good guy with a gun around is the only way to stop a crazy person with a gun.

That's not really the answer to me though.

I am not sure what the answer is to be blunt. I feel I know what the problem is maybe.

When did people become so non-caring?
When did human life become so cheap?
When did we decide that killing for a couple dollars was ok, or because someone said something you didn't like, or someone was walking somewhere you felt they shouldn't?

People will kill someone for the most minor reason and feel absolutely zero remorse.

Guns are not the problem, for whatever reason people have become the problem.

I have owned guns since I was 9 years old, hunted since I was 12 years old and own more than 25 firearms today.

I have gotten so mad, disgusted, hurt, disrespected and pissed off at times in my life I couldn't see straight
or think clearly and sometimes made some bad choices....But I NEVER once thought about taking a gun and ending someones life over it....never!

I am not religious but I have some morals and it is just wrong to kill someone except in self defense.

Is it because of violent video games? Do Violent movies teach us it's ok? Does the lack of religion and the fear of a god make it easier? I don't know, maybe a little of all the above.

Although I am not religious I can look back when people were more religious and most of them had more moral fiber than we do today. Even though I don't believe the Bible, It did give a lot of people guidance.

I think we should leave the guns alone and maybe Ban people...

Maybe license your reproductive organs and you have to show you are responsible before you turn out a bunch of kids.


Maybe get people and kids off all the crazy drugs they put everybody on now days.....

Maybe when somebody shows signs of being unstable.....have them checked out.

People that commit violent crimes should be removed from society permanently, no repeat offenders!

Maybe work on keeping families together so kids have 2 parents...

Maybe quit paying people to stay home, not work and pump out 10 kids with no fathers..


I really just don't know..........



posted on Sep, 22 2013 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by MysteriousHusky
 


"However, more "good guys with guns" is potentially counter-productive as increases the likelihood of these tragedies when one of the "good guys" goes through a phase and snaps. "

So cops should be the first crew of 'good guys' that should be disarmed. They are more apt to snap than the rest f the population.... according to statistics.



posted on Sep, 22 2013 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


Police are are extension of the government which has been appointed to protect the country. They differ from "good guys" in general as their mandate comes from the public via their government. Perhaps we should clarify the scope of the term "good guys" or at least set the perimeters. Even "good guys" can turn so do we have a catch 22?
If we have 0 good guys then we essentially have Somalia or a stateless country.
edit on 22-9-2013 by MysteriousHusky because: addition
edit on 22-9-2013 by MysteriousHusky because: addition



posted on Sep, 22 2013 @ 07:30 PM
link   
An armed society is a polite society



posted on Sep, 22 2013 @ 07:32 PM
link   

MysteriousHusky
reply to post by butcherguy
 


Police are are extension of the government which has been appointed to protect the country. They differ from "good guys" in general as their mandate comes from the public via their government. Perhaps we should clarify the scope of the term "good guys" or at least set the perimeters.


Noticed you said "protect the country" and not "protect the people." This is a problem as the country does not need protecting by them. That's why we have the military.

Warren v. District of Columbia basically states the following:


Warren v. District of Columbia (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) is an oft-quoted District of Columbia Court of Appeals (equivalent to a state supreme court) case that held police do not have a duty to provide police services to individuals, even if a dispatcher promises help to be on the way, except when police develop a special duty to particular individuals.


As far as defining good guys, that's open to interpretation. To me any citizen is a good guy or gal unless convicted of a serious crime. Forced commitments of people to mental facilities may fall into a no-gun category but that is subjective too. Look at what happened to Brandon Raub.



posted on Sep, 22 2013 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by MysteriousHusky
 

It just makes sense for the population to be armed. No new law is necessary, it is a right, unless you live in a 'no carry' area.

It is not an obligation, mind you but, if you choose not to carry, you will be equally protected by the deterrent effect.

After Words: Emily Miller, "Emily Gets Her Gun...But Obama Wants to Take Yours," hosted by Craig Whitney, author of "Living with Guns: A Liberal's Case for the Second Amendment"
edit on 22-9-2013 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2013 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by tanda7
 

Wow that is really cool! A place where people can live comfortably really nice.



posted on Sep, 22 2013 @ 10:02 PM
link   

cavtrooper7
reply to post by tanda7
 

Wow that is really cool! A place where people can live comfortably really nice.
You got me thinking whether or not things had changed much since I lived there full time. I still have property there but haven't lived there since 5 years ago.

This is the police report for the week ending Sept. 18, 2013;
You can tell they include every call in this report.
www.williamsnews.com...

Some highlights and interesting points,

1 Burglary
1 Fight where "the subjects wouldn't cooperate". This probably means they were drunk and given
a ride home.
1 Fight with shots fired resulting in one arrest. No injuries.

In this 7 day period, officers issued 15 citations and gave out 25 warnings.

I would be willing to bet all the good stuff happened Friday and Saturday night.

Williams is one of those places where the cops will help you.
Read the police report, very few arrest.

Judging from what little I know of you, based on your post I've seen, I think you would love it there.
I hope there are still places in CO like that.







edit on 22-9-2013 by tanda7 because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join