RPC has moved! These pages have been kept for historical purposes

V'aleera · **06-14-2016, 01:30 AM**

(06-14-2016, 01:18 AM)LiadansWhisper Wrote: you cannot remove a constitutional right without due process

You totally can, and we've been doing it since 2001. Not the happiest state of affairs, but might as well wring some good out of it.

McBeefâ„¢ · **06-14-2016, 01:33 AM**

(06-14-2016, 12:58 AM)V Wrote:
(06-14-2016, 12:45 AM)LiadansWhisper Wrote: He had no criminal history (being investigated is not the same as being charged or convicted of anything).

Semi-automatic weapons and sidearms serve no purpose beyond the efficient infliction of mass casualties in a combat zone. There is no reason for them to exist in any capacity in the private sphere.

Also, if the government can restrict your freedom to travel because they don't like how your name sounds, they should restrict your freedom to buy murder toys because you openly claim ties to Al Qaeda.

He was a security guard though.

Do you think Cops should be able to have semi automatic weapons? Security guards? Armored car drivers?Â

Just saying it's not so simple as that. In canada you can have semi automatic rifles and pistols. It's harder to get them, but you can do it. They don't have same shooting problems we do.

LiadansWhisper · **06-14-2016, 01:36 AM**

(06-14-2016, 01:30 AM)Valeera Wrote:
(06-14-2016, 01:18 AM)LiadansWhisper Wrote: you cannot remove a constitutional right without due process

You totally can, and we've been doing it since 2001. Not the happiest state of affairs, but might as well wring some good out of it.

Well, you can try, but it generally gets struck down in court. If you're referring to the Patriot Act, there is due process, of a sort, built into it. Hitching our wagon to the No-Fly list would be incredibly stupid. We have no actual process for placing people on it, or removing them. It isn't overseen by a judge, or any member of the judiciary. It is a list of names, and nothing else - which is why so many people get caught up in it when their names are the same or similar to individuals already on the list. We've already had cases of abuse.

Unless the No-Fly list is reformed, it is not a good way to police terrorists and weapons.

McBeefâ„¢ · **06-14-2016, 01:42 AM**

I do think we need different gun laws, but we already have stricter laws than we had 100 years ago.

90 years ago you could go buy a thompson submachine gun and a 50 round drum out of a fucking catalog lol. Yet we didn't have the issues (apart from mobsters murdering each other with them) that we do now.Â

I really think it's a more pervasive problem than gun control.

V'aleera · **06-14-2016, 01:53 AM**

(06-14-2016, 01:33 AM)McBeefÂ© Wrote: Do you think Cops should be able to have semi automatic weapons? Security guards? Armored car drivers?Â

Nope. When are they even going to use them? They didn't use them here. If a situation requires an application of force most efficiently delivered by semi-automatic and automatic weapons, that is a situation that should be handled by SWAT or the National Guard.\

I'll even go so far as to state my belief that the regulars among the police should be as equally disarmed as the public.

LiadansWhisper · **06-14-2016, 08:08 AM**

(06-14-2016, 01:53 AM)Valeera Wrote:
(06-14-2016, 01:33 AM)McBeefÂ© Wrote: Do you think Cops should be able to have semi automatic weapons? Security guards? Armored car drivers?Â

Nope. When are they even going to use them? They didn't use them here. If a situation requires an application of force most efficiently delivered by semi-automatic and automatic weapons, that is a situation that should be handled by SWAT or the National Guard.\

I'll even go so far as to state my belief that the regulars among the police should be as equally disarmed as the public.

Um...yes, cops DID use semi-automatic weapons. Do you understand the difference between a semi-automatic weapon and an automatic weapon? Most, if not all, cops are issued semi-automatic weapons like Glocks. What's more, why would the National Guard be handling *anything* like this? Do you understand how illegal that is? The National Guard can't do shit without a governor directly intervening, and sending them to police something would break major regulations about what they are and aren't allowed to do. Not to mention that it would take *days* for them to get called up.

Askier · **06-14-2016, 08:27 AM**

It takes an average of 5 to 7 minutes for a cop to arrive somewhere on a good day.

It takes about three seconds for me to pull out a side arm and shoot back.

Gun control is simply ineffective. Look at Paris and Chicago. Two cities with some of the strictest gun laws in the world. And, ironically, some of the highest number of gun related crimes in the developed world.Â

How can that be? Gun laws protect people.Â

Actually all they do is disarm normal citizens, which makes it hard or almost impossible for them to defend themselves while nut jobs are still able to find the weapons they need. I'd rather carry a weapon and be able to defend myself and others than only be able to hide while waiting for the cops to show up.

Are guns a big responsibility? Yes? Are they dangerous? Yes, when used by a person for ill intent only though. Guns are just tools after all. They do not move or fire unless a human being picks them up and uses them. They are hunks of emotionless metal. Guns are not the problem. I learned that while living in London. A city with very strict gun laws. And you know what happened while I was there? The government had to ban knives outside the home cause too many people were getting stabbed.Â

Huh. Imagine. Nut cases simply using something else to kill someone. Humans are going to kill each other. We've been doing it for millennia. Â Taking away weapons normal people can use to keep themselves safe won't fix it. This is something bigger. Something no law will fix.

Warren Castille · **06-14-2016, 08:35 AM**

It's sad how often this link has been used in the past year.

Askier Wrote:Are guns a big responsibility? Yes? Are they dangerous? Yes, when used by a person for ill intent only though. Guns are just tools after all. They do not move or fire unless a human being picks them up and uses them. They are hunks of emotionless metal. Guns are not the problem. I learned that while living in London. A city with very strict gun laws. And you know what happened while I was there? The government had to ban knives outside the home cause too many people were getting stabbed.

Huh. Imagine. Nut cases simply using something else to kill someone. Humans are going to kill each other. We've been doing it for millennia. Taking away weapons normal people can use to keep themselves safe won't fix it. This is something bigger. Something no law will fix.

This will be as-applicable when one person with a knife can kill 50 people in a club in minutes, or a student can kill 30 college kids with a single knife, or someone with mental health issues can murder two dozen school children in seconds with a single knife.

Law doesn't have to fix it, it just has to make it harder to do it this easily. Hell, no law in the history of man has gone unbroken, so why bother having any of them? I mean, drugs and prostitution and everything else is illegal and people still do it, so why bother legislation against them? People are just gonna be people, so we might as well give up on trying to not listen to our lizard brains.

I'm not grumping at Askier in particular, but "people are just going to do it anyway" is the worst defense for guns, and it seems to only ever come up regarding guns. Think of how many lives would have been saved in Colorado, or Florida, or Sandy Hook if these people only had access to knives.

Askier · **06-14-2016, 08:50 AM**

How many lives could have been saved Warren if someone had been armed and able to shoot back?

Why do we always rely on the military or police? Those men and women are just people in uniforms. Normal citizens can be trained just as well. Â

The attack in Paris is a tragic example of how the laws don't stop people from getting guns if they really want to find them. They will find a way. Â

Suppose guns disappear from regular circulation. Okay. So now all someone needs is about fifty dollars and a copy of the 'Anarchists Cookbook' and now they can make over the counter explosives.

Arrelaine · **06-14-2016, 08:54 AM**

(06-14-2016, 08:35 AM)Warren Castille Wrote: It's sad how often this link has been used in the past year.

Askier Wrote:Are guns a big responsibility? Yes? Are they dangerous? Yes, when used by a person for ill intent only though. Guns are just tools after all. They do not move or fire unless a human being picks them up and uses them. They are hunks of emotionless metal. Guns are not the problem. I learned that while living in London. A city with very strict gun laws. And you know what happened while I was there? The government had to ban knives outside the home cause too many people were getting stabbed.

Huh. Imagine. Nut cases simply using something else to kill someone. Humans are going to kill each other. We've been doing it for millennia. Â Taking away weapons normal people can use to keep themselves safe won't fix it. This is something bigger. Something no law will fix.

This will be as-applicable when one person with a knife can kill 50 people in a club in minutes, or a student can kill 30 college kids with a single knife, or someone with mental health issues can murder two dozen school children in seconds with a single knife.

Law doesn't have to fix it, it just has to make it harder to do it this easily. Hell, no law in the history of man has gone unbroken, so why bother having any of them? I mean, drugs and prostitution and everything else is illegal and people still do it, so why bother legislation against them? People are just gonna be people, so we might as well give up on trying to not listen to our lizard brains.

I'm not grumping at Askier in particular, but "people are just going to do it anyway" is the worst defense for guns, and it seems to only ever come up regarding guns. Think of how many lives would have been saved in Colorado, or Florida, or Sandy Hook if these people only had access to knives.

But they wouldn't not have access to guns. Look at drugs. Prohibiting drugs certainly didn't make it harder to aquire them. The Cartels from Mexico smuggle them in on an hourly basis. We waste -billions- on anti-drug and anti-prostitution laws. Money we don't have. On laws that really only effect the people doing it to themselves. Heck, alcohol has a worse effect than most drugs and it's still legal. They would still have access to guns. If you put in gun laws, guess who doesn't have access to guns? The people who are willing to protect themselves. All of those places had no-gun rules. What would have been the outcome had someone else other than the police officer outside had a gun there, who had their permits, their classes and their training?

Also, all of those incidents, people had guns illegally. None of those people were legal gun owners. Even the guy in Florida would have been an illegal owner had his ex-wife reported him for domestic violence. They all either had a rap sheet, or they had mental health histories, and they got their guns from legal gun owners (which is also illegal). You can't own a gun legally if you have any sort of mental health history, drug abuse, or really anything on your rap sheet that would have landed you in jail. They -already- 'do it anyway', it's already supposed to be 'harder' for them to get it.

Everyone here where I live conceal carries. We have almost no gun-related violence. Everyone assumes everyone else has a gun, and the rare occurrence is a robbery at a gas station.

Warren Castille · **06-14-2016, 09:00 AM**

(06-14-2016, 08:54 AM)Arrelaine Wrote:
(06-14-2016, 08:35 AM)Warren Castille Wrote: It's sad how often this link has been used in the past year.

Askier Wrote:Are guns a big responsibility? Yes? Are they dangerous? Yes, when used by a person for ill intent only though. Guns are just tools after all. They do not move or fire unless a human being picks them up and uses them. They are hunks of emotionless metal. Guns are not the problem. I learned that while living in London. A city with very strict gun laws. And you know what happened while I was there? The government had to ban knives outside the home cause too many people were getting stabbed.

Huh. Imagine. Nut cases simply using something else to kill someone. Humans are going to kill each other. We've been doing it for millennia. Â Taking away weapons normal people can use to keep themselves safe won't fix it. This is something bigger. Something no law will fix.

This will be as-applicable when one person with a knife can kill 50 people in a club in minutes, or a student can kill 30 college kids with a single knife, or someone with mental health issues can murder two dozen school children in seconds with a single knife.

Law doesn't have to fix it, it just has to make it harder to do it this easily. Hell, no law in the history of man has gone unbroken, so why bother having any of them? I mean, drugs and prostitution and everything else is illegal and people still do it, so why bother legislation against them? People are just gonna be people, so we might as well give up on trying to not listen to our lizard brains.

I'm not grumping at Askier in particular, but "people are just going to do it anyway" is the worst defense for guns, and it seems to only ever come up regarding guns. Think of how many lives would have been saved in Colorado, or Florida, or Sandy Hook if these people only had access to knives.
But they wouldn't not have access to guns. Look at drugs. Prohibiting drugs certainly didn't make it harder to aquire them. The Cartels from Mexico smuggle them in on an hourly basis. They would still have access to guns. If you put in gun laws, guess who doesn't have access to guns? The people who are willing to protect themselves. All of those places had no-gun rules. What would have been the outcome had someone else other than the police officer outside had a gun there, who had their permits, their classes and their training?

Also, all of those incidents, people had guns illegally. None of those people were legal gun owners. Even the guy in Florida would have been an illegal owner had his ex-wife reported him for domestic violence. They all either had a rap sheet, or they had mental health histories, and they got their guns from legal gun owners (which is also illegal). You can't own a gun legally if you have any sort of mental health history, drug abuse, or really anything on your rap sheet that would have landed you in jail. They -already- 'do it anyway', it's already supposed to be 'harder' for them to get it.

Everyone here where I live conceal carries. We have almost no gun-related violence. Everyone assumes everyone else has a gun, and the rare occurrence is a robbery at a gas station.

"The system works, it's just everyone else failing it?" Sandy Hook took his mom's weapon. Orlando bought his weapons legally. I don't recall off the top of my head where Virginia Tech bought his, but VA has such lax gun laws it's laughable.

Again, if "everyone would do it anyway" how come drugs are still illegal? Gambling, outside of select states? Speeding? Law in general? Why is it always guns that people clamp down on?

What's the last mass-shooting that was stopped by a heroic concealed-carrying citizen?

Arrelaine · **06-14-2016, 09:14 AM**

(06-14-2016, 09:00 AM)Warren Castille Wrote:
(06-14-2016, 08:54 AM)Arrelaine Wrote:
(06-14-2016, 08:35 AM)Warren Castille Wrote: It's sad how often this link has been used in the past year.

Askier Wrote:Are guns a big responsibility? Yes? Are they dangerous? Yes, when used by a person for ill intent only though. Guns are just tools after all. They do not move or fire unless a human being picks them up and uses them. They are hunks of emotionless metal. Guns are not the problem. I learned that while living in London. A city with very strict gun laws. And you know what happened while I was there? The government had to ban knives outside the home cause too many people were getting stabbed.

Huh. Imagine. Nut cases simply using something else to kill someone. Humans are going to kill each other. We've been doing it for millennia. Â Taking away weapons normal people can use to keep themselves safe won't fix it. This is something bigger. Something no law will fix.

This will be as-applicable when one person with a knife can kill 50 people in a club in minutes, or a student can kill 30 college kids with a single knife, or someone with mental health issues can murder two dozen school children in seconds with a single knife.

Law doesn't have to fix it, it just has to make it harder to do it this easily. Hell, no law in the history of man has gone unbroken, so why bother having any of them? I mean, drugs and prostitution and everything else is illegal and people still do it, so why bother legislation against them? People are just gonna be people, so we might as well give up on trying to not listen to our lizard brains.

I'm not grumping at Askier in particular, but "people are just going to do it anyway" is the worst defense for guns, and it seems to only ever come up regarding guns. Think of how many lives would have been saved in Colorado, or Florida, or Sandy Hook if these people only had access to knives.
But they wouldn't not have access to guns. Look at drugs. Prohibiting drugs certainly didn't make it harder to aquire them. The Cartels from Mexico smuggle them in on an hourly basis. They would still have access to guns. If you put in gun laws, guess who doesn't have access to guns? The people who are willing to protect themselves. All of those places had no-gun rules. What would have been the outcome had someone else other than the police officer outside had a gun there, who had their permits, their classes and their training?

Also, all of those incidents, people had guns illegally. None of those people were legal gun owners. Even the guy in Florida would have been an illegal owner had his ex-wife reported him for domestic violence. They all either had a rap sheet, or they had mental health histories, and they got their guns from legal gun owners (which is also illegal). You can't own a gun legally if you have any sort of mental health history, drug abuse, or really anything on your rap sheet that would have landed you in jail. They -already- 'do it anyway', it's already supposed to be 'harder' for them to get it.

Everyone here where I live conceal carries. We have almost no gun-related violence. Everyone assumes everyone else has a gun, and the rare occurrence is a robbery at a gas station.

"The system works, it's just everyone else failing it?" Sandy Hook took his mom's weapon. Orlando bought his weapons legally. I don't recall off the top of my head where Virginia Tech bought his, but VA has such lax gun laws it's laughable.

Again, if "everyone would do it anyway" how come drugs are still illegal? Gambling, outside of select states? Speeding? Law in general? Why is it always guns that people clamp down on?

What's the last mass-shooting that was stopped by a heroic concealed-carrying citizen?

Never, because mass-shootings happen in gun-free zones. All those places? Had rules against carrying guns. There was a mass shooting that was stopped, just after the Pulse one in California. ISIS had called for more attacks just like it, and a member was on their way to a gay club there, but he was stopped before he even got there. Has there been a mass shooting where people were allowed to carry guns? Even VA Tech has a no carrying law, as most colleges/university in my state do.

And exactly, Sandy Hook stole his mother's guns (which is illegal). Orlando wouldn't have been bought legally if his wife had reported him for domestic violence. VA tech did buy his legally, before they closed the loophole where people with an unstable mental history could still buy guns so long as they didn't go to a ward. Now if you have a prescription for any kind of mind-altering substance, you can't get one legally.

I don't think we need speeding, drug, prostitution or gambling laws. If people want to do stupid things to themselves I don't care what they do. Prostitution and drugs would be a heck of a lot safer if people didn't fear punishment and actually get help with not doing dirty drugs or getting STDs. In other countries, there are places were there are no speeding laws, rarely does anyone get hurt. In other countries, prostitution is legalized and the prostitutes can regulate themselves, and demand testing or protection. People don't rape or abuse them because they're protected by law. Here, they're going to get arrested if they go to someone and say 'hey I'm a prostitute and I was raped'. I already made the point about drugs and alcohol. Alcohol is by far a worse substance, yet it's legal to drink it, and people go out and kill people by the -thousands- because of drunk driving.

Kage · **06-14-2016, 09:16 AM**

(06-14-2016, 08:50 AM)Askier Wrote: How many lives could have been saved Warren if someone had been armed and able to shoot back?

There was either an armed guard or an armed off-duty cop (might have been the same person reports I've read have not been very clear) that he just went past and killed 49 people and injured 50. The fact is, we will never know how many lives could have or could not have been saved. What ifs can only do us so much. How many others could have been hit if that someone was armed and shot other people instead of the armed shooter?

The question is, why do other countries that have strict gun control have less issues or less horrific incidents than the United States? When criminals disobey laws to obtain the weaponry they want, what is working for other countries that isn't working in the United States?

(06-14-2016, 09:14 AM)Arrelaine Wrote: There was a mass shooting that was stopped, just after the Pulse one in California. ISIS had called for more attacks just like it, and a member was on their way to a gay club there, but he was stopped before he even got there.

Unless you're talking about a different incident as I haven't heard of anything else happening in California, this is -not- what happened in Los Angeles. He wasn't a member of Daesh. James Howell (reportedly bi, he at least had an ex-boyfriend) was found in a car, heavily armed, after he police started looking for him because someone reported his suspicious behavior. He hasn't said if he had any motives to attack the event, just attend.

Warren Castille · **06-14-2016, 09:21 AM**

I admit I'm in the dark if there are other, successful cases, but are we that far removed from the Trayvon Martin murder case that we should be encouraging people to shoot threats they determine with no previous training or practice?

I don't know. This whole thing is depressing, and I agree that it shouldn't be used as a platform for politics or agenda. The mass, pointless loss of life drives me a little insane and probably irrational. I don't think the answer is arming everyone though, there's way too many people who'd jump at the chance to play hero and potentially hurt someone else.

Being reactive to hostility means there are always, always going to be casualties. I just wish it was harder for people to go about producing them.

LiadansWhisper · **06-14-2016, 09:33 AM**

(06-14-2016, 08:50 AM)Askier Wrote: How many lives could have been saved Warren if someone had been armed and able to shoot back?

Why do we always rely on the military or police? Those men and women are just people in uniforms. Normal citizens can be trained just as well. Â

The attack in Paris is a tragic example of how the laws don't stop people from getting guns if they really want to find them. They will find a way. Â

Suppose guns disappear from regular circulation. Okay. So now all someone needs is about fifty dollars and a copy of the 'Anarchists Cookbook' and now they can make over the counter explosives.

Lives were saved in Orlando. There was an off-duty police officer there who immediately returned fire with his personal handgun. The police are crediting him with saving dozens outside. And because he immediately called for backup, and the responding officers didn't wait for a SWAT team to arrive (and instead entered the building and, using guns, forced the attacker into a bathroom), dozens more lives were saved.

« Next Oldest \| Next Newest »
Pages (5): « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »

Pulse Mass Shooting (USA)

RPC has moved! These pages have been kept for historical purposes