MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: snipers shoot dead police officers in Dallas  (Read 21138 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Shelma1

« Reply #75 on: July 11, 2016, 17:49 »
0
The police in the UK can use a taser or pepper spray if the person they are dealing with looks like they are going for a weapon.  Its a lot easier when there usually aren't any guns on either side.

So lets say you were in France when the attack went down and you were there in person, I guess you would be hoping that the cops showed up with their tasers and pepper spray?

I really can't see how any of you can not imagine what if you were in that situation and what you would do or wish you had to protect yourselves? Are you all telling me honestly that if you were in that situation you would just hope for the best, hope that you would not get shot? I find it hard to believe that if you were in that situation that you would not be wishing you had a way to protect yourselves and the ones you love.
Let's say you were there with a hand gun (assuming one is not walking around with an AK-47 openly), what are you going to do against automatic weapons? You might as well throw rocks at them.
On a side note, there were 2 police officers outside the Bataclan when it happened, they couldn't go in because they know they were nice targets to the terrorists since they only had standard hand guns with them. And these are professionals with a gun, how would you think you stand a chance against multiple terrorists with machine guns? Reality is far from what you see in movies.

You are wrong, in 1996 a gunman came on to a military base where my parents served with an ak 47 with a 100 round clip and started killing people at the hospital. An MP rode a bike down the road from his post, the gunman exited the building shooting at my mother as he pulled up on the bike, he got off the bike and from 100 yards shot and killed the gunman.

It is obvious that we will never agree, I am a firm believer in gun ownership, I come form a military family of several generations who has protected your rights as citizens. You can go down that Commie Liberal road  all you want but I will never give up my Rights to you or anyone else.

You are in a dream state if you think Society will peacefully coexist it never has and never will that is why every society from the dawn of civilization has had weapons to protect themselves.

Did this happen in the U.S.? Was the shooter with an ak47 a civilian?


« Reply #76 on: July 11, 2016, 18:59 »
+7


You are wrong, in 1996 a gunman came on to a military base where my parents served with an ak 47 with a 100 round clip and started killing people at the hospital. An MP rode a bike down the road from his post, the gunman exited the building shooting at my mother as he pulled up on the bike, he got off the bike and from 100 yards shot and killed the gunman.

It is obvious that we will never agree, I am a firm believer in gun ownership, I come form a military family of several generations who has protected your rights as citizens. You can go down that Commie Liberal road  all you want but I will never give up my Rights to you or anyone else.

You are in a dream state if you think Society will peacefully coexist it never has and never will that is why every society from the dawn of civilization has had weapons to protect themselves.


No, you are wrong, firstly you're talking about one guy with an ak47 in the open as he exited a bldg which give a lot more room to maneuver as oppose to multiple guys with ak47 in an enclosed area where there are absolutely no room for a good strategic defense. Secondly, that MP was a trained police officer not a regular civilian. Military and polices are trained professional dedicating their life handling guns for the sole purpose of saving civilian lives and theirs not the other way around. In a world were everybody would have guns nobody would be able to distinguish the good guys from the bad guys.

Lets say on that same base, before that MP showed up, a civilian guy pulled up his gun and started shooting at the guy with the ak47 but in the process accidentally killed a kid, than the MP shows up. How that MP is supposed to know that the regular guy with the gun is a good guy as well? Yes the MP could accidentally kill that kid too, but at least everybody would know he is the good guy.

This is the heart of the problem which you seem to willfully omit.

You see there is a reason for the police to wear a uniform and to carry a badge. It is to tell us that in a bad situation they are the good guys. At least most of them are

« Last Edit: July 11, 2016, 19:19 by cybernesco »

Shelma1

« Reply #77 on: July 11, 2016, 20:54 »
+7
"On 20 June 1994, Dean Mellberg, an ex-Air Force member, entered the base hospital and shot and killed four people and wounded 23 others.[19] Mellberg recently had been discharged from Cannon AFB, NM as unfit for duty... He traveled to the town of Airway Heights, just outside Fairchild AFB, where he purchased weapons and planned his attack on the base."

This sounds like an awful situation and I feel for the people who were there, but it actually is an excellent example of why we should make it much more difficult for civilians to buy guns. He was kicked out of the military and was able to just drive to a nearby town and come back with weapons of war capable of spraying people with bullets. A very clear example of why we should ban guns like these.

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/06/21/us/gunman-kills-2-and-hurts-19-on-air-force-base.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Air_Force_Base#1994_shooting_incident

farbled

« Reply #78 on: July 11, 2016, 21:22 »
+6
I don't need the constitution to tell me thats its my Human right to protect Myself and Family, I choose to own a gun for that very purpose. If you don't want to own a gun and think that by calling the police or lets say using a baseball bat will save your life or families lives in lets say a home invasion which typically involves two or more thugs who are armed then good luck with that, chances are you would wind up dead.

If you think that by outlawing guns ....

Here's the fundamental problem with arguing gun control. Every comment before this one was about control and regulation. Not banning or outlawing. Yet every single time there's an argument, this is the usual response. They turn it into an all or nothing argument. Own a gun, sure. But nationally, consistently, prove you're not a danger to society first. Yes, criminals will get guns somehow. But if you think that dumb criminals won't get caught more often than not, then really there's no point in discussing this further. I don't understand how making it harder for criminals to get guns can be a bad thing (ie. more regulation).

You can get almost any gun you want here in Canada with a few exceptions. The difference is that nationally you have to jump through more hoops to prove that you can be a responsible gun owner.  Why? Because we had a mass shooting and changed the laws to make it harder to get a gun. It works, its proven to work. There will always be murder, but why not try and prevent at least some of them?

« Reply #79 on: July 12, 2016, 04:36 »
+5
How many kids are killed each year playing with their parents guns ?

« Reply #80 on: July 12, 2016, 07:14 »
0

« Reply #81 on: July 12, 2016, 07:20 »
+4
How many kids are killed each year playing with their parents guns ?
https://www.thetrace.org/2015/12/gun-violence-stats-2015/

"Kids younger than three have gotten ahold of guns and shot someone at least 59 times this year, a disturbing trend first reported by Christopher Ingraham at the Washington Post in October. Most often, these toddlers injure or kill themselves, but more than a dozen have shot other people, sometimes fatally. Gun violence prevention advocates say that gun storage requirements and the adoption of smart guns that only fire for their owners could reduce these deaths, but the gun lobby vehemently opposes such mandates. In November, after the Posts report, 20 Democrats in the U.S. Senate asked the Government Accountability Office to issue a report on the safe storage of guns in American homes."


Shelma1

« Reply #82 on: July 12, 2016, 08:49 »
+3
More Americans own ten or more guns than there are people in Norway. Sick.

« Reply #83 on: July 12, 2016, 13:52 »
0
When two countries (or any other entities or sides) are at war and you are being fired on, you return fire, you don't care if the guy on the other side has a family, he didn't care if you had. You don't stand and watch or shout "that's wrong!"

I really can't understand a logic where a group of people can fire at other group of people and only one of those groups is entitled to return fire. Police just got a little taste of what they've been doing for a long time and everyone should feel for them? We should be civilized now? Let's talk now, not shoot? Yeah right, tell that to innocent people killed by police, they too have families.

If the police didn't want to get sniped they shouldn't have killed innocent people for fun. Simple as that. If you are policeman  and you are innocent and you judge the killing of innocent people, well, step out and say it: "Something in police doesn't work let do something about it" - if you say nothing you as well might be a murderer.   

« Reply #84 on: July 12, 2016, 14:14 »
+3
When two countries (or any other entities or sides) are at war and you are being fired on, you return fire, you don't care if the guy on the other side has a family, he didn't care if you had. You don't stand and watch or shout "that's wrong!"

I really can't understand a logic where a group of people can fire at other group of people and only one of those groups is entitled to return fire. Police just got a little taste of what they've been doing for a long time and everyone should feel for them? We should be civilized now? Let's talk now, not shoot? Yeah right, tell that to innocent people killed by police, they too have families.

If the police didn't want to get sniped they shouldn't have killed innocent people for fun. Simple as that. If you are policeman  and you are innocent and you judge the killing of innocent people, well, step out and say it: "Something in police doesn't work let do something about it" - if you say nothing you as well might be a murderer.   

So something in police doesn't work, so therefore, let's arm all civilians and declare open war on cops? And while we are at it, let's arm ALL civilians with semi- and automatic weapons, so we can show all the innocent bystanders just who's boss. This war is just like a nuclear war...there are no winners. Everybody dies. Is that what should happen? No. What should happen is EVERYBODY puts down their guns and finds some other solutions to all their hate and ignorance. And even if one side tries to make changes, the other side digs in their heels and is not willing to compromise, kind of like when legislators say they want to put firmer gun control laws and regulations in place, the NRA and followers shout at the top of their lungs NO OUTLAWING OF GUNS. Until both sides are willing to compromise, nothing will change and the violence will continue.  :(

Shelma1

« Reply #85 on: July 12, 2016, 14:56 »
+6
Both sides being willing to compromise sounds nice, but what exactly should the side who wants more gun control do to compromise? We've gotten absolutely no concessions from the pro-gun side, who refuse to budge on anything whatsoever. They want terrorists to be able to buy AK47s. People on the no-fly list. People who are kicked out of the military. People who are feeling suicidal or homicidal. People who feel the need to "protect their families" with entire arsenals of weapons. No limits on the number of guns, the clips. No research allowed. No discussion in Congress...they just go on vacation or turn off the cameras.

Small town police forces arm themselves with tanks and military weapons. Cops shoot innocent people of every color to death a few times a day. Mass shootings happen so often it barely makes the news any more.

The pro-gun control side is more reasonable than you'd think reasonable could be. They're so afraid of the Second Amendment they only call for minor concessions--like banning AR-15s for suspected terrorists--that there's no way they'll ask for what we really need, the only thing that will actually make a dent, which is a huge national gun buy back and strict gun controls, which have been put in place by every reasonably civilized country but ours.

Perhaps we should stop describing ourselves as civilized.

« Reply #86 on: July 12, 2016, 23:30 »
0


You are wrong, in 1996 a gunman came on to a military base where my parents served with an ak 47 with a 100 round clip and started killing people at the hospital. An MP rode a bike down the road from his post, the gunman exited the building shooting at my mother as he pulled up on the bike, he got off the bike and from 100 yards shot and killed the gunman.

It is obvious that we will never agree, I am a firm believer in gun ownership, I come form a military family of several generations who has protected your rights as citizens. You can go down that Commie Liberal road  all you want but I will never give up my Rights to you or anyone else.

You are in a dream state if you think Society will peacefully coexist it never has and never will that is why every society from the dawn of civilization has had weapons to protect themselves.


No, you are wrong, firstly you're talking about one guy with an ak47 in the open as he exited a bldg which give a lot more room to maneuver as oppose to multiple guys with ak47 in an enclosed area where there are absolutely no room for a good strategic defense. Secondly, that MP was a trained police officer not a regular civilian. Military and polices are trained professional dedicating their life handling guns for the sole purpose of saving civilian lives and theirs not the other way around. In a world were everybody would have guns nobody would be able to distinguish the good guys from the bad guys.

Lets say on that same base, before that MP showed up, a civilian guy pulled up his gun and started shooting at the guy with the ak47 but in the process accidentally killed a kid, than the MP shows up. How that MP is supposed to know that the regular guy with the gun is a good guy as well? Yes the MP could accidentally kill that kid too, but at least everybody would know he is the good guy.

This is the heart of the problem which you seem to willfully omit.

You see there is a reason for the police to wear a uniform and to carry a badge. It is to tell us that in a bad situation they are the good guys. At least most of them are

I'm not wrong, my point was that a person with a handgun can in fact stand up to someone with a automatic assault riffle! He did case closed. As for being in a building a Handgun is more maneuverable then an assault riffle.

As for the MP he probably was well trained but that doe not mean most of the people serving in the military are well trained, especially when they are new!

What makes you think a civilian can not be as well trained or better trained? Their is no way to back that up, just as with the military there are people with different skill levels.

« Reply #87 on: July 12, 2016, 23:33 »
0
"On 20 June 1994, Dean Mellberg, an ex-Air Force member, entered the base hospital and shot and killed four people and wounded 23 others.[19] Mellberg recently had been discharged from Cannon AFB, NM as unfit for duty... He traveled to the town of Airway Heights, just outside Fairchild AFB, where he purchased weapons and planned his attack on the base."

This sounds like an awful situation and I feel for the people who were there, but it actually is an excellent example of why we should make it much more difficult for civilians to buy guns. He was kicked out of the military and was able to just drive to a nearby town and come back with weapons of war capable of spraying people with bullets. A very clear example of why we should ban guns like these.

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/06/21/us/gunman-kills-2-and-hurts-19-on-air-force-base.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Air_Force_Base#1994_shooting_incident


You got it! That's the one, I was off on the year as it's been awhile. He was upset that he was discharged due  to mental problems. He should not have been allowed to purchase a gun once he was discharged on Mental Problems.

« Reply #88 on: July 12, 2016, 23:35 »
0
I don't need the constitution to tell me thats its my Human right to protect Myself and Family, I choose to own a gun for that very purpose. If you don't want to own a gun and think that by calling the police or lets say using a baseball bat will save your life or families lives in lets say a home invasion which typically involves two or more thugs who are armed then good luck with that, chances are you would wind up dead.

If you think that by outlawing guns ....

Here's the fundamental problem with arguing gun control. Every comment before this one was about control and regulation. Not banning or outlawing. Yet every single time there's an argument, this is the usual response. They turn it into an all or nothing argument. Own a gun, sure. But nationally, consistently, prove you're not a danger to society first. Yes, criminals will get guns somehow. But if you think that dumb criminals won't get caught more often than not, then really there's no point in discussing this further. I don't understand how making it harder for criminals to get guns can be a bad thing (ie. more regulation).

You can get almost any gun you want here in Canada with a few exceptions. The difference is that nationally you have to jump through more hoops to prove that you can be a responsible gun owner.  Why? Because we had a mass shooting and changed the laws to make it harder to get a gun. It works, its proven to work. There will always be murder, but why not try and prevent at least some of them?

Maybe you should ask Obama he is the one that allowed for Fast and Furious giving guns to criminals!

« Reply #89 on: July 12, 2016, 23:41 »
+1
When two countries (or any other entities or sides) are at war and you are being fired on, you return fire, you don't care if the guy on the other side has a family, he didn't care if you had. You don't stand and watch or shout "that's wrong!"

I really can't understand a logic where a group of people can fire at other group of people and only one of those groups is entitled to return fire. Police just got a little taste of what they've been doing for a long time and everyone should feel for them? We should be civilized now? Let's talk now, not shoot? Yeah right, tell that to innocent people killed by police, they too have families.

If the police didn't want to get sniped they shouldn't have killed innocent people for fun. Simple as that. If you are policeman  and you are innocent and you judge the killing of innocent people, well, step out and say it: "Something in police doesn't work let do something about it" - if you say nothing you as well might be a murderer.   

Depends on the case in some instants the cop made the wrong choice, in others the person was reaching for a gun, their are rules and ultimately a cop is going to protect his life if he thinks he is in danger. If the suspect is not following the Cops commands and reaches for a pocket or something then the cop assumes they are armed as it all goes down in a split second. Thats why it's important to follow the cops instructions as they don't know if you are armed weather its a gun or knife. I think unless you have been a cop then you really don't know what they go through and unless you were at a situation you don't really have all the details to make judgement.

« Reply #90 on: July 12, 2016, 23:44 »
0
When two countries (or any other entities or sides) are at war and you are being fired on, you return fire, you don't care if the guy on the other side has a family, he didn't care if you had. You don't stand and watch or shout "that's wrong!"

I really can't understand a logic where a group of people can fire at other group of people and only one of those groups is entitled to return fire. Police just got a little taste of what they've been doing for a long time and everyone should feel for them? We should be civilized now? Let's talk now, not shoot? Yeah right, tell that to innocent people killed by police, they too have families.

If the police didn't want to get sniped they shouldn't have killed innocent people for fun. Simple as that. If you are policeman  and you are innocent and you judge the killing of innocent people, well, step out and say it: "Something in police doesn't work let do something about it" - if you say nothing you as well might be a murderer.   

So something in police doesn't work, so therefore, let's arm all civilians and declare open war on cops? And while we are at it, let's arm ALL civilians with semi- and automatic weapons, so we can show all the innocent bystanders just who's boss. This war is just like a nuclear war...there are no winners. Everybody dies. Is that what should happen? No. What should happen is EVERYBODY puts down their guns and finds some other solutions to all their hate and ignorance. And even if one side tries to make changes, the other side digs in their heels and is not willing to compromise, kind of like when legislators say they want to put firmer gun control laws and regulations in place, the NRA and followers shout at the top of their lungs NO OUTLAWING OF GUNS. Until both sides are willing to compromise, nothing will change and the violence will continue.  :(

The reason for guns is because its the great equalizer, if granny is faced with some huge 22 year old thug
coming into the home who is going to win? Not granny! but with a firearm she stands a chance.

« Reply #91 on: July 12, 2016, 23:46 »
0
Both sides being willing to compromise sounds nice, but what exactly should the side who wants more gun control do to compromise? We've gotten absolutely no concessions from the pro-gun side, who refuse to budge on anything whatsoever. They want terrorists to be able to buy AK47s. People on the no-fly list. People who are kicked out of the military. People who are feeling suicidal or homicidal. People who feel the need to "protect their families" with entire arsenals of weapons. No limits on the number of guns, the clips. No research allowed. No discussion in Congress...they just go on vacation or turn off the cameras.

Small town police forces arm themselves with tanks and military weapons. Cops shoot innocent people of every color to death a few times a day. Mass shootings happen so often it barely makes the news any more.

The pro-gun control side is more reasonable than you'd think reasonable could be. They're so afraid of the Second Amendment they only call for minor concessions--like banning AR-15s for suspected terrorists--that there's no way they'll ask for what we really need, the only thing that will actually make a dent, which is a huge national gun buy back and strict gun controls, which have been put in place by every reasonably civilized country but ours.

Perhaps we should stop describing ourselves as civilized.

There should be licensing and mental evaluation that I can agree with and if we were civilized then yes we would no longer need any weapons but I'm not going to give mine up until everyone does together.

« Reply #92 on: July 13, 2016, 00:41 »
+2

I'm not wrong, my point was that a person with a handgun can in fact stand up to someone with a automatic assault riffle! He did case closed.


Case not closed. You failed to make the difference between the two defensive positions for which your argument was based on. One, the incident in France where people were held hostage in an enclosed area surrounded by guys with ak47s which made a surprise defense almost impossible, the other, one single guy with an ak47 coming out of a bldg making himself the perfect target for anybody with a gun.


As for being in a building a Handgun is more maneuverable then an assault riffle.


It won't matter if you are in an enclosed area surrounded with guys with ak47s...you're dead



As for the MP he probably was well trained but that doe not mean most of the people serving in the military are well trained, especially when they are new!

What makes you think a civilian can not be as well trained or better trained? Their is no way to back that up, just as with the military there are people with different skill levels.


Again, you either fail to understand or willfully omit the point. When, everything goes to sh!t, it becomes far more important to be able to differentiate the good guys from the bad ones else training won't matters. If there is one lesson to learn from the Philando Castile death, is the fact that the police did not know that he was a good guy because, one of the reasons,  he had  a gun.

Think about it. Lets say, one day you go down the street and see a civilian running and shooting at someone. And despite not knowing all the facts, you think this guy is bad. You pull your gun and start running after him. And while you run after him, you realized that this guy is running after another guy shooting at someone. And that someone is running at someone else with a gun too. And just before you get shot in the back, as you come close to an open field, you see a battlefield of people shooting at each others.  Do you get it?
« Last Edit: July 13, 2016, 01:07 by cybernesco »

farbled

« Reply #93 on: July 13, 2016, 20:58 »
+3
I don't need the constitution to tell me thats its my Human right to protect Myself and Family, I choose to own a gun for that very purpose. If you don't want to own a gun and think that by calling the police or lets say using a baseball bat will save your life or families lives in lets say a home invasion which typically involves two or more thugs who are armed then good luck with that, chances are you would wind up dead.

If you think that by outlawing guns ....

Here's the fundamental problem with arguing gun control. Every comment before this one was about control and regulation. Not banning or outlawing. Yet every single time there's an argument, this is the usual response. They turn it into an all or nothing argument. Own a gun, sure. But nationally, consistently, prove you're not a danger to society first. Yes, criminals will get guns somehow. But if you think that dumb criminals won't get caught more often than not, then really there's no point in discussing this further. I don't understand how making it harder for criminals to get guns can be a bad thing (ie. more regulation).

You can get almost any gun you want here in Canada with a few exceptions. The difference is that nationally you have to jump through more hoops to prove that you can be a responsible gun owner.  Why? Because we had a mass shooting and changed the laws to make it harder to get a gun. It works, its proven to work. There will always be murder, but why not try and prevent at least some of them?

Maybe you should ask Obama he is the one that allowed for Fast and Furious giving guns to criminals!

That makes no sense to anything I posted. If you read my comment, I'm actually "pro gun". But all you see is regulation=banning and get all hysterical about someone breaking into your home. NO ONE SAID BAN GUNS until you said it first. So your arguments are actually a hijack of the thread. Nicely done.

« Reply #94 on: July 14, 2016, 04:27 »
+3
People kill people because they like it - and they have a gun handy to make it easier to kill more than one.

« Reply #95 on: July 14, 2016, 09:51 »
0
When two countries (or any other entities or sides) are at war and you are being fired on, you return fire, you don't care if the guy on the other side has a family, he didn't care if you had. You don't stand and watch or shout "that's wrong!"

I really can't understand a logic where a group of people can fire at other group of people and only one of those groups is entitled to return fire. Police just got a little taste of what they've been doing for a long time and everyone should feel for them? We should be civilized now? Let's talk now, not shoot? Yeah right, tell that to innocent people killed by police, they too have families.

If the police didn't want to get sniped they shouldn't have killed innocent people for fun. Simple as that. If you are policeman  and you are innocent and you judge the killing of innocent people, well, step out and say it: "Something in police doesn't work let do something about it" - if you say nothing you as well might be a murderer.   

So something in police doesn't work, so therefore, let's arm all civilians and declare open war on cops? And while we are at it, let's arm ALL civilians with semi- and automatic weapons, so we can show all the innocent bystanders just who's boss. This war is just like a nuclear war...there are no winners. Everybody dies. Is that what should happen? No. What should happen is EVERYBODY puts down their guns and finds some other solutions to all their hate and ignorance. And even if one side tries to make changes, the other side digs in their heels and is not willing to compromise, kind of like when legislators say they want to put firmer gun control laws and regulations in place, the NRA and followers shout at the top of their lungs NO OUTLAWING OF GUNS. Until both sides are willing to compromise, nothing will change and the violence will continue.  :(

No it's not a solution to have a total war, but I just can't judge returning fire, sometimes you have to show a force, especially if you are fighting a mindless force that knows no other way.

« Reply #96 on: July 14, 2016, 20:44 »
+2
We need to ban trucks.

« Reply #97 on: July 14, 2016, 21:50 »
+2
We need to ban trucks.

In 2015, over 13,000 people has been killed in the United States in 2015 in a gun homicide, unintentional shooting, or murder/suicide.

At least trucks are useful for the world economy and our survival. Can you say the same for a world filled with guns?

« Reply #98 on: July 15, 2016, 02:48 »
+1

I'm not wrong, my point was that a person with a handgun can in fact stand up to someone with a automatic assault riffle! He did case closed.


Case not closed. You failed to make the difference between the two defensive positions for which your argument was based on. One, the incident in France where people were held hostage in an enclosed area surrounded by guys with ak47s which made a surprise defense almost impossible, the other, one single guy with an ak47 coming out of a bldg making himself the perfect target for anybody with a gun.


As for being in a building a Handgun is more maneuverable then an assault riffle.


It won't matter if you are in an enclosed area surrounded with guys with ak47s...you're dead



As for the MP he probably was well trained but that doe not mean most of the people serving in the military are well trained, especially when they are new!

What makes you think a civilian can not be as well trained or better trained? Their is no way to back that up, just as with the military there are people with different skill levels.


Again, you either fail to understand or willfully omit the point. When, everything goes to sh!t, it becomes far more important to be able to differentiate the good guys from the bad ones else training won't matters. If there is one lesson to learn from the Philando Castile death, is the fact that the police did not know that he was a good guy because, one of the reasons,  he had  a gun.

Think about it. Lets say, one day you go down the street and see a civilian running and shooting at someone. And despite not knowing all the facts, you think this guy is bad. You pull your gun and start running after him. And while you run after him, you realized that this guy is running after another guy shooting at someone. And that someone is running at someone else with a gun too. And just before you get shot in the back, as you come close to an open field, you see a battlefield of people shooting at each others.  Do you get it?

No two situations are going to be the same, however if you were in France during that attack you would have some sort of chance to defend yourself as compared to none. Terrorists run in with guns shooting, you hit the deck if you are not already dead and pull out your gun and fire back. I'd take those chances as opposed to no gun to fight back with. If you don't get that argument then you frankly have no self survival instinct. I'm not going to give up my natural instinct simply because you have none and want to take away my rights because you believe yours supersede my own. My life matters and so do the ones I love. Your argument convinces me of nothing other then your hell bent determination to bend my will to yours.

As for determining who the bad guys are, that would quickly be determined based on who is shooting who and how. Maybe you are slow on reading situations I don't know, but I think if someone comes in blasting people its obvious there not there to give hugs!

As for the cops showing up, once they do and the threat is being taken care of you put down your weapon or put it away so that you are not seen as a threat.

As for Philando Castile I don't know the details of that situation and was not there so I can't comment on that!

« Reply #99 on: July 15, 2016, 02:55 »
0
I don't need the constitution to tell me thats its my Human right to protect Myself and Family, I choose to own a gun for that very purpose. If you don't want to own a gun and think that by calling the police or lets say using a baseball bat will save your life or families lives in lets say a home invasion which typically involves two or more thugs who are armed then good luck with that, chances are you would wind up dead.

If you think that by outlawing guns ....

Here's the fundamental problem with arguing gun control. Every comment before this one was about control and regulation. Not banning or outlawing. Yet every single time there's an argument, this is the usual response. They turn it into an all or nothing argument. Own a gun, sure. But nationally, consistently, prove you're not a danger to society first. Yes, criminals will get guns somehow. But if you think that dumb criminals won't get caught more often than not, then really there's no point in discussing this further. I don't understand how making it harder for criminals to get guns can be a bad thing (ie. more regulation).

You can get almost any gun you want here in Canada with a few exceptions. The difference is that nationally you have to jump through more hoops to prove that you can be a responsible gun owner.  Why? Because we had a mass shooting and changed the laws to make it harder to get a gun. It works, its proven to work. There will always be murder, but why not try and prevent at least some of them?

Maybe you should ask Obama he is the one that allowed for Fast and Furious giving guns to criminals!

That makes no sense to anything I posted. If you read my comment, I'm actually "pro gun". But all you see is regulation=banning and get all hysterical about someone breaking into your home. NO ONE SAID BAN GUNS until you said it first. So your arguments are actually a hijack of the thread. Nicely done.

Sorry I was responding to many people who oppose my statements I misread your post. I do believe there should be metal evaluations as long as the doctors can be unbiased unlike Ginsberg. Otherwise you will get corrupt liberal doctors who hate guns just failing everyone!


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
6 Replies
3915 Views
Last post July 11, 2007, 22:55
by ichiro17
32 Replies
10282 Views
Last post October 11, 2011, 09:48
by lagereek
2 Replies
2163 Views
Last post September 12, 2011, 09:38
by louoates
0 Replies
1626 Views
Last post February 15, 2012, 09:55
by rubyroo
33 Replies
6657 Views
Last post April 24, 2013, 14:12
by Leo Blanchette

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle