GOP sympathy for victims, Dems call for gun control

[peach174]

Do you all realize that if they had no guns at all, that the amount bombs they had, would have killed a lot more than just 14 people?

 

[JoeNormal]

Oh, didn't realize that I was talking to a Constitutional scholar.

I'm a little surprised that you're being so hard on the guys who were using guns to try to take down the perp in this case. Isn't that what you think guns are for? Are you a better shot than the cops?

You are the one saying they should have rights I don't just because they work for the government. You are the one that said they are vetted, and somehow "better" at being gun owners. I just provided data showing that your assumptions are incorrect. So why should they get special treatment and I shouldn't? I have no arrests or convictions, no history of mental illness, and the worst I have gotten is a speeding ticket (2 in 15 years).

Yet they get a pass from having to go through 6 months of paper work, and yet they are a higher risk to harm themselves and/or their families.

Why does that make sense?

Police carry guns everyday of their professional lives. They also spend a lot of time at a shooting range. That makes them special in this particular respect. I don't understand why you find this such a difficult concept to accept.

In the state where I live, if you have no traffic tickets, you don't have to be tested for 10 years for a driver's license renewal. This is a similar concept.

Really? What is the minimum required time at a range, and how many go there more than the minimum. I have a feeling your average CCW holder shoots at a range far more than your average cop.

There are no "special" citizens in this country. You seek to go back to feudal concepts, where only an elite few, mandated by the government have the right to use force, and have the means to apply it. We don't have a knightly class, but evidently that's what you want to go back to.

I'd sure as hell choose to be protected by a professional law enforcement agent than some guy off the street who thinks he is equipped to handle any situation because he likes guns.

Your lack of faith in your fellow citizens is noted. Evidently only the government and those in its employ are to be trusted.

And again, that police officer is under no obligation to save your ass from anyone.

He's more obligated than my fellow citizen.

I'm better equipped to handle a 'situation' than most. Much stronger (and look it), have some martial arts in my background and some decent situational awareness and I think I would do what I could if I came across someone who needed help but I trust that a cop would have much more experience in that area than I would.

Your right wing distrust of anything related to government is noted.

 

[JoeNormal]

It might provide a cooling off period if you were buying a gun to settle a vendetta or something. The problem is that there's no consistency in gun laws across the country so if you were of a mind to do it, you could go to another state and buy one.

3-6 months isn't a "cooling off period". It's infringement meant to make the process as difficult as possible so as few people as possible try to apply.

And what if I needed a gun for protection? Will the NYPD give me 24/7 security while they wait for my application to be processed?

And that is ALSO THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE. If I really really wanted a gun, I could get it, even if you made the laws the same across all the states. all NYC's law does is make my life difficult for no reason other than "we don't want you to have a gun"

But notice the NYPD can off duty carry, and retired PO's get a CCW permit almost automatically,.

Why do they get rights I don't. They should be forced to place their guns in an armory after a shift, and fend like the rest of us.

NYPD officers are under a lot of scrutiny for a long period of time. They've been vetted. Ordinary citizens haven't.

I can remember a time when New York was a crime infested cesspool where few decent people would want to live. However, crime rates have been going down for a good long time now. I think they must be doing SOMETHING right.

Oh rly?

2012 Empire State Building shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Nine bystanders were wounded by stray bullets fired by the officers and ricocheting debris, but none suffered life-threatening injuries.[4]/QUOTE]


PsychiatryOnline

Exposure to trauma is inherent in police work. It has been reported that about one-third of police officers exposed to various work-related traumatic incidents develop significant posttraumatic stress symptoms (1). Alcohol use is an acceptable, common, sometimes encouraged, legal way of relieving stress in police culture. A survey (2) found that 20% of police officers met criteria for alcohol abuse. Police work may be complicated by marital and family problems. Officers and their partners consistently find the job itself to be a source of relationship difficulties (3, 4). Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and alcohol abuse may lead to excessive aggression. Police families have been found to experience higher rates of domestic violence than the civilian population (5). All of these factors may contribute to the high rate of police suicide. The consensus is that the police suicide rate is about 1.5 times higher than the rate of suicide in the general population

You realize there's a statistical component to all of this, right? We have so many fucking guns (and gun nuts) in this country that it's much more likely that incidents like this will happen here than in countries with fewer guns. Of course, that answer in the gun nuts mind will be that EVERYBODY should be armed. The answer to anybody who understands statistical probability is to reduce the number of guns available.

Wow, so you think it's actually the guns that are evil and go on the shooting rampages. LOL, you're a tool in a belt on a Democrat.

how's your strategy of preventing anyone from defending themselves from the nuts working out for you? Nice body counts you're getting, well done

You're obviously too stupid to understand the concept of statistical probability so I won't bother trying to explain it to you here.

 

[martybegan]

You are the one saying they should have rights I don't just because they work for the government. You are the one that said they are vetted, and somehow "better" at being gun owners. I just provided data showing that your assumptions are incorrect. So why should they get special treatment and I shouldn't? I have no arrests or convictions, no history of mental illness, and the worst I have gotten is a speeding ticket (2 in 15 years).

Yet they get a pass from having to go through 6 months of paper work, and yet they are a higher risk to harm themselves and/or their families.

Why does that make sense?

Police carry guns everyday of their professional lives. They also spend a lot of time at a shooting range. That makes them special in this particular respect. I don't understand why you find this such a difficult concept to accept.

In the state where I live, if you have no traffic tickets, you don't have to be tested for 10 years for a driver's license renewal. This is a similar concept.

Really? What is the minimum required time at a range, and how many go there more than the minimum. I have a feeling your average CCW holder shoots at a range far more than your average cop.

There are no "special" citizens in this country. You seek to go back to feudal concepts, where only an elite few, mandated by the government have the right to use force, and have the means to apply it. We don't have a knightly class, but evidently that's what you want to go back to.

I'd sure as hell choose to be protected by a professional law enforcement agent than some guy off the street who thinks he is equipped to handle any situation because he likes guns.

Your lack of faith in your fellow citizens is noted. Evidently only the government and those in its employ are to be trusted.

And again, that police officer is under no obligation to save your ass from anyone.

He's more obligated than my fellow citizen.

I'm better equipped to handle a 'situation' than most. Much stronger (and look it), have some martial arts in my background and some decent situational awareness and I think I would do what I could if I came across someone who needed help but I trust that a cop would have much more experience in that area than I would.

Your right wing distrust of anything related to government is noted.

No, he isn't. If he was he could be held liable if he failed to protect you.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/p...stitutional-duty-to-protect-someone.html?_r=0

The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

 

[JoeNormal]

Police carry guns everyday of their professional lives. They also spend a lot of time at a shooting range. That makes them special in this particular respect. I don't understand why you find this such a difficult concept to accept.

In the state where I live, if you have no traffic tickets, you don't have to be tested for 10 years for a driver's license renewal. This is a similar concept.

Really? What is the minimum required time at a range, and how many go there more than the minimum. I have a feeling your average CCW holder shoots at a range far more than your average cop.

There are no "special" citizens in this country. You seek to go back to feudal concepts, where only an elite few, mandated by the government have the right to use force, and have the means to apply it. We don't have a knightly class, but evidently that's what you want to go back to.

I'd sure as hell choose to be protected by a professional law enforcement agent than some guy off the street who thinks he is equipped to handle any situation because he likes guns.

Your lack of faith in your fellow citizens is noted. Evidently only the government and those in its employ are to be trusted.

And again, that police officer is under no obligation to save your ass from anyone.

He's more obligated than my fellow citizen.

I'm better equipped to handle a 'situation' than most. Much stronger (and look it), have some martial arts in my background and some decent situational awareness and I think I would do what I could if I came across someone who needed help but I trust that a cop would have much more experience in that area than I would.

Your right wing distrust of anything related to government is noted.

No, he isn't. If he was he could be held liable if he failed to protect you.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/p...stitutional-duty-to-protect-someone.html?_r=0

The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

Well, try this one on for size then. Every once in a while, you hear of a good samaritan who is killed trying to defend someone from a criminal. Much more often, you hear of a cop who was killed in the line of duty even though the population of cops is miniscule compared to the general population. Why is that?

 

[martybegan]

Really? What is the minimum required time at a range, and how many go there more than the minimum. I have a feeling your average CCW holder shoots at a range far more than your average cop.

There are no "special" citizens in this country. You seek to go back to feudal concepts, where only an elite few, mandated by the government have the right to use force, and have the means to apply it. We don't have a knightly class, but evidently that's what you want to go back to.

I'd sure as hell choose to be protected by a professional law enforcement agent than some guy off the street who thinks he is equipped to handle any situation because he likes guns.

Your lack of faith in your fellow citizens is noted. Evidently only the government and those in its employ are to be trusted.

And again, that police officer is under no obligation to save your ass from anyone.

He's more obligated than my fellow citizen.

I'm better equipped to handle a 'situation' than most. Much stronger (and look it), have some martial arts in my background and some decent situational awareness and I think I would do what I could if I came across someone who needed help but I trust that a cop would have much more experience in that area than I would.

Your right wing distrust of anything related to government is noted.

No, he isn't. If he was he could be held liable if he failed to protect you.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/p...stitutional-duty-to-protect-someone.html?_r=0

The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

Well, try this one on for size then. Every once in a while, you hear of a good samaritan who is killed trying to defend someone from a criminal. Much more often, you hear of a cop who was killed in the line of duty even though the population of cops is miniscule compared to the general population. Why is that?

In most of those cases the cop is killed either trying to apprehend the criminal, or is ambushed by the criminal, he/she is usually not trying to protect another individual.

Still doesn't require them to protect you as an individual. As an individual you have a right and duty to protect yourself.

 

[mudwhistle]

How many lives does sympathy save? Not that the Republicans are doing it for anything more than covering their asses for political reasons.

How does keeping people unarmed and unable to defend themselves save them?

Who's unarmed? We're the most heavily armed country in the world.

Every person killed in CA yesterday was unarmed

I lived in CA.

Their gun laws are among the strictest in the country...and still didn't save one of the victims.

 

[RDD_1210]

How many lives does sympathy save? Not that the Republicans are doing it for anything more than covering their asses for political reasons.

How does keeping people unarmed and unable to defend themselves save them?

Seems to work just fine in every other 1st world nation. Why is that?

No it doesn't. Try again.

Yes it does, open your eyes.

 

[RDD_1210]

How many lives does sympathy save? Not that the Republicans are doing it for anything more than covering their asses for political reasons.

How does keeping people unarmed and unable to defend themselves save them?

Who's unarmed? We're the most heavily armed country in the world.

Every person killed in CA yesterday was unarmed

I lived in CA.

Their gun laws are among the strictest in the country...and still didn't save one of the victims.

How do their gun laws stack up against the rest of the world?

 

[RDD_1210]

It's pretty obvious by now that owning guns doesn't make a society safer. If it did, we'd be the safest country in the world. Anyone who is honest with themselves can see this.

 

[mudwhistle]

How many lives does sympathy save? Not that the Republicans are doing it for anything more than covering their asses for political reasons.

How does keeping people unarmed and unable to defend themselves save them?

Who's unarmed? We're the most heavily armed country in the world.

Every person killed in CA yesterday was unarmed

I lived in CA.

Their gun laws are among the strictest in the country...and still didn't save one of the victims.

How do their gun laws stack up against the rest of the world?

Close to Europe. Very difficult to get a concealed carry permit.

Whats amazing is France has very high restrictions but that didn't stop the attacks.

The goal isn't really to stop these attacks. It's to disarm us so we can't pose a threat to Democrats.

 

[RDD_1210]

How does keeping people unarmed and unable to defend themselves save them?

Who's unarmed? We're the most heavily armed country in the world.

Every person killed in CA yesterday was unarmed

I lived in CA.

Their gun laws are among the strictest in the country...and still didn't save one of the victims.

How do their gun laws stack up against the rest of the world?

Close to Europe. Very difficult to get a concealed carry permit.

Whats amazing is France has very high restrictions but that didn't stop the attacks.

The goal isn't really to stop these attacks. It's to disarm us so we can't pose a threat to Democrats.

Nothing will stop gun violence all together. Just like medicine can't stop all disease, doesn't mean we stop trying to improve medicine.

Since you brought up France, should we compare gun violence in their country compared to ours? See if their more restrictive gun laws are more effective? What do you think?

 

[mudwhistle]

Who's unarmed? We're the most heavily armed country in the world.

Every person killed in CA yesterday was unarmed

I lived in CA.

Their gun laws are among the strictest in the country...and still didn't save one of the victims.

How do their gun laws stack up against the rest of the world?

Close to Europe. Very difficult to get a concealed carry permit.

Whats amazing is France has very high restrictions but that didn't stop the attacks.

The goal isn't really to stop these attacks. It's to disarm us so we can't pose a threat to Democrats.

Nothing will stop gun violence all together. Just like medicine can't stop all disease, doesn't mean we stop trying to improve medicine.

Since you brought up France, should we compare gun violence in their country compared to ours? See if their more restrictive gun laws are more effective? What do you think?

Didn't we already find that out 2 weeks ago?

 

[PoliticalChic]

How many lives does sympathy save? Not that the Republicans are doing it for anything more than covering their asses for political reasons.

How does keeping people unarmed and unable to defend themselves save them?

Who's unarmed? We're the most heavily armed country in the world.

Every person killed in CA yesterday was unarmed

I lived in CA.

Their gun laws are among the strictest in the country...and still didn't save one of the victims.

This guy has a point:

"Armed Citizens Deter Terrorist Attacks In Detroit, Police Chief Says
DETROIT (CBS Detroit) More guns, fewer problems. That, at least, is Detroit Police Chief’s James Craig’s view of Detroit and fears about a possible terrorist attack.

While cities around the world are on heightened alert following a devastating ISIS attack in Paris, Detroit’s police chief says he believes the fear that armed citizens would return fire serves as a deterrent for a potential terrorist attack in the rust belt city."
Armed Citizens Deter Terrorist Attacks In Detroit, Police Chief Says

 

[RDD_1210]

Every person killed in CA yesterday was unarmed

I lived in CA.

Their gun laws are among the strictest in the country...and still didn't save one of the victims.

How do their gun laws stack up against the rest of the world?

Close to Europe. Very difficult to get a concealed carry permit.

Whats amazing is France has very high restrictions but that didn't stop the attacks.

The goal isn't really to stop these attacks. It's to disarm us so we can't pose a threat to Democrats.

Nothing will stop gun violence all together. Just like medicine can't stop all disease, doesn't mean we stop trying to improve medicine.

Since you brought up France, should we compare gun violence in their country compared to ours? See if their more restrictive gun laws are more effective? What do you think?

Didn't we already find that out 2 weeks ago?

If you're having trouble keeping up with the conversation, just say so.

 

[FA_Q2]

That is the problem. You 'recon' rather than examining the data.

My 'reckoning' is just as valid as the question.
Put it another way - how many lives have been saved in cities and states with less gun regulation?
Where's your data for that?

I have given it to you several times. I also do not make that assertion - I don't need to. Weather or not guns save lives is irrelevant. YOU want to remove a right and as such YOU need to furnish proof that such will have significant advantages.

I wasn't even replying to you.
The question from Mud was 'how many lives have been saved blah blah..."
The only point I'm trying to make is that you can't quantify a negative.
It's a stupid question in other words.

Spare me your ridiculous accusations of my assault on your Second Amendment rights...it has nothing to do with the conversation.

You cant quantify a change is homicide or death rate?

Who knew.

Save the asinine backpedaling. It is apparent you do not want to deal with the topic.

No, no...now you've got me interested.
I'm always prepared to be convinced.
Tell me, how many lives would have been saved in Chicago or Ca if the gun laws were less restrictive?

I have no idea. I have not seen anything that convinces me there would be significant differences in homicide rates without gun control measures. I have yet to seriously look into other forms of violent crime yet.

 

[kaz]

3-6 months isn't a "cooling off period". It's infringement meant to make the process as difficult as possible so as few people as possible try to apply.

And what if I needed a gun for protection? Will the NYPD give me 24/7 security while they wait for my application to be processed?

And that is ALSO THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE. If I really really wanted a gun, I could get it, even if you made the laws the same across all the states. all NYC's law does is make my life difficult for no reason other than "we don't want you to have a gun"

But notice the NYPD can off duty carry, and retired PO's get a CCW permit almost automatically,.

Why do they get rights I don't. They should be forced to place their guns in an armory after a shift, and fend like the rest of us.

NYPD officers are under a lot of scrutiny for a long period of time. They've been vetted. Ordinary citizens haven't.

I can remember a time when New York was a crime infested cesspool where few decent people would want to live. However, crime rates have been going down for a good long time now. I think they must be doing SOMETHING right.

Oh rly?

2012 Empire State Building shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Nine bystanders were wounded by stray bullets fired by the officers and ricocheting debris, but none suffered life-threatening injuries.[4]/QUOTE]


PsychiatryOnline

Exposure to trauma is inherent in police work. It has been reported that about one-third of police officers exposed to various work-related traumatic incidents develop significant posttraumatic stress symptoms (1). Alcohol use is an acceptable, common, sometimes encouraged, legal way of relieving stress in police culture. A survey (2) found that 20% of police officers met criteria for alcohol abuse. Police work may be complicated by marital and family problems. Officers and their partners consistently find the job itself to be a source of relationship difficulties (3, 4). Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and alcohol abuse may lead to excessive aggression. Police families have been found to experience higher rates of domestic violence than the civilian population (5). All of these factors may contribute to the high rate of police suicide. The consensus is that the police suicide rate is about 1.5 times higher than the rate of suicide in the general population

You realize there's a statistical component to all of this, right? We have so many fucking guns (and gun nuts) in this country that it's much more likely that incidents like this will happen here than in countries with fewer guns. Of course, that answer in the gun nuts mind will be that EVERYBODY should be armed. The answer to anybody who understands statistical probability is to reduce the number of guns available.

Wow, so you think it's actually the guns that are evil and go on the shooting rampages. LOL, you're a tool in a belt on a Democrat.

how's your strategy of preventing anyone from defending themselves from the nuts working out for you? Nice body counts you're getting, well done

You're obviously too stupid to understand the concept of statistical probability so I won't bother trying to explain it to you here.

I was a math major, Holmes. That you think defending yourself from criminals = being a criminal and we're safer not being able to defend ourselves from shooters shows what your opinion is worth

 

[JoeNormal]

NYPD officers are under a lot of scrutiny for a long period of time. They've been vetted. Ordinary citizens haven't.

I can remember a time when New York was a crime infested cesspool where few decent people would want to live. However, crime rates have been going down for a good long time now. I think they must be doing SOMETHING right.

Oh rly?

2012 Empire State Building shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Nine bystanders were wounded by stray bullets fired by the officers and ricocheting debris, but none suffered life-threatening injuries.[4]/QUOTE]


PsychiatryOnline

You realize there's a statistical component to all of this, right? We have so many fucking guns (and gun nuts) in this country that it's much more likely that incidents like this will happen here than in countries with fewer guns. Of course, that answer in the gun nuts mind will be that EVERYBODY should be armed. The answer to anybody who understands statistical probability is to reduce the number of guns available.

Wow, so you think it's actually the guns that are evil and go on the shooting rampages. LOL, you're a tool in a belt on a Democrat.

how's your strategy of preventing anyone from defending themselves from the nuts working out for you? Nice body counts you're getting, well done

You're obviously too stupid to understand the concept of statistical probability so I won't bother trying to explain it to you here.

I was a math major, Holmes. That you think defending yourself from criminals = being a criminal and we're safer not being able to defend ourselves from shooters shows what your opinion is worth

A math major who thinks in terms of black and white? Yeah right. And BTW, I don't equate defending yourself from criminals to being a criminal. Maybe you should have taken a few reading classes along with your math.