evo
Been here much more than a while
- Location
- My Island, WA
Roe v Wade overturned
- Thread starter Boomslang
- Start date
evo
Been here much more than a while
- Location
- My Island, WA
climbhightree
Branched out member
- Location
- Lebanon, Pa USA
To be clear I said from a business perspective, in which I meant financial. I'm not saying that is the only reason, but it is a very good one $ wise.
Carefule with that last paragraph. Sounds like you would be against forced masking and vaccination. Since it is no one's business what anyone does to their body, and it is a personal issue not a social one.
climbhightree
Branched out member
- Location
- Lebanon, Pa USA
Yep there is my point exactly. Though I understand that this is a really personal topic for you.
I actually prefer your take (your last comment) , because it is direct and more or less final. Compared to the under the table, word twisting, snide stuff. You aren't necessarily trying to make the "right" look bad by twisting their words, changing the topic, or calling names. You are purely saying I don't agree, and f it.
Last edited:
You dishonestly claimed that you have not defended the gun here, yet your words from multiple posts tell a different story. Zero twisting needed. If you can't stand behind your words then maybe you shouldn't post them bro-
"I do blame them some indirectly for their policies that degrade morals, break down of families, fairness of the law, consequences for actions, helping people up vs giving them a handout, etc. Both sides have their faults, and I am willing to look at both sides (obviously since I took the time to look at and organize some of the stats).
Yes, I lean conservative republican so I tend to agree more with that side. I definitely don't blame a gun, or even the access to a gun, for a homicide. Taking away guns doesn't solve the problem, or prevent the violence."
"How many of those deaths were in democrat run cities, where gun control is already extremely tight (therefore gun control is not the problem)?"
It's fun to watch the fella who proclaimed "They have a right to not spread their legs" continue whining and trying and play the victim though...
"I do blame them some indirectly for their policies that degrade morals, break down of families, fairness of the law, consequences for actions, helping people up vs giving them a handout, etc. Both sides have their faults, and I am willing to look at both sides (obviously since I took the time to look at and organize some of the stats).
Yes, I lean conservative republican so I tend to agree more with that side. I definitely don't blame a gun, or even the access to a gun, for a homicide. Taking away guns doesn't solve the problem, or prevent the violence."
"How many of those deaths were in democrat run cities, where gun control is already extremely tight (therefore gun control is not the problem)?"
It's fun to watch the fella who proclaimed "They have a right to not spread their legs" continue whining and trying and play the victim though...
Last edited:
climbhightree
Branched out member
- Location
- Lebanon, Pa USA
Never claimed I was a victim, and never whined. I've never attacked you directly or indirectly (claiming your words are dishonest, America Taliban, etc). I merely stated that the "left" is doing these tactics. If I truly felt I was a victim, I would either go away and/or report you every time you lass out.
I have said I don't blame a gun for killing someone. I blame the person that controlled the gun/tool (gun is inanimate and can't do something itself). I blame the reasons behind why that person thought he had to pull the trigger. If you take that as me defending a gun and caring about nothing else, that is on you but is not what I have been saying.
So you're here claiming that guns aren't the problem, and that gun control doesn't work, but you're not defending the gun? Got it...
I do find it amazing that you afford a gun more deniability than you do the victims of rape/incest.
You were accused of putting more importance on the right to bear arm than on the lives of gun violence victims...Not "caring about nothing else". Nice attempt at twisting someones word though..Now run along and carry on with your dishonest nonsense...
climbhightree
Branched out member
- Location
- Lebanon, Pa USA
I laugh because if you got that out of what I said, you truly a special individual. That directly goes into me saying that you twisting my words, or adding your own thoughts to them
I care about gun victims, I care about all victims. I care enough that I don't think it would be bad idea to arm/train teaches to put a stop to these shootings faster. I care enough to think people should be able to protect themselves, and others, with a gun if necessary. I care enough to recognize that it isn't just a gun killing someone, that the gun has no thoughts or actions of their own. I care enough about the victims to not use it as a political point to ban guns.
climbhightree
Branched out member
- Location
- Lebanon, Pa USA
Hypothetically, I don't see why one should have to wait minutes for cops to show up, and then another 75 mins for them to do something about a shooting.or any extreme violence. So who cares about the victims more?
How many were killed in 9/11...if I recall correctly they just had box cutters (no guns)
How many were killed in 9/11...if I recall correctly they just had box cutters (no guns)
climbhightree
Branched out member
- Location
- Lebanon, Pa USA
Can you, that are on the gun ban side honestly say that if you were a witness to a shooting, bombing, multiple stabbings would not wish you had possession of a gun to put a stop to it? A gun with more than just a couple bullets in case you miss, and then have to directly defend yourself?
Or would you prefer to just run and protect your own life and screw anyone else...then use it politically to advance your own agenda.
Or would you prefer to just run and protect your own life and screw anyone else...then use it politically to advance your own agenda.
Can you cite any examples of when this was done successfully without additional loss of life?
climbhightree
Branched out member
- Location
- Lebanon, Pa USA
I am pretty sure that are cases of this, that don't get picked up by mainstream media (doesn't fit their agenda). I will look.
Do have examples where it added deaths, or didnt distract the shooter etc from taking more innocent lives. There is a reason why cops are supposed to rush the shooter etc
Plus you didn't really answer the question...would you wish you had a gun (or access to one) to stop the violence...or at least try?
Last edited:
Recent events and study info where a legally armed person stopped a crime:
www.naturalnews.com
Mass shooting stopped by law-abiding woman carrying concealed handgun – NaturalNews.com
Left-wing Democrats love to claim that the concept of a “good guy with a gun” stopping mass murders is a myth that does not pan out in real life, but of course, like everything else they say on the topic of firearms, that is completely false. And in fact, they have been proven wrong again […]
www.naturalnews.com
climbhightree
Branched out member
- Location
- Lebanon, Pa USA
At a town hall meeting a few days ago, a police chief in my state voiced opposition to arming teachers. He thinks it puts them at risk of being misidentified as the shooter and being killed by the police, makes them more likely targets for the shooter, as well as being impractical to train them to a competent level for such a difficult response scenario. He doesn't believe that more guns in schools is part of the solution and thinks they could even make things worse.
In general, I'm not a fan of SROs. Too often, they are not adequately trained for a role much different than regular policing and some just don't have the right mindset for it. Stuff that used to earn a trip to the principle's office can now result in arrest and a record that dogs the child for years, even when charges are dropped. I'm sure everyone has seen videos of little kids being treated like hardened criminals by SROs. Too many instances of criminalizing kids for acting like (badly behaved) kids. IMHO, SROs would serve us better by providing physical security for schools and staying out of routine matters.
I've seen that analysis of hundreds of incidents do not statistically bear out that a "good guy with a gun" is likely to result in better outcomes in mass shootings. In the recent mass shooting at a church 10 minutes from my house, the shooter was taken down by a good guy with a chair. I have no issue if people want to legally carry. I have guns, but don't routinely carry.
climbhightree
Branched out member
- Location
- Lebanon, Pa USA
I hear you and agree with you to a point. I agree there isn't enough training etc to make them ready for a shooting scenario, etc. It would also make the teachers the first targets...but I rather have that happen then kids being the first target. I rather protect the kids from being the primary target as long as possible till the police get there, even if that means I would be the target.
I am the same. I own guns, but don't actively carry. In fact I would identify myself as a Mennonite, so it would technically be against my "religion" to take someone's life...even in these scenarios. It doesn't mean that I can't do everything in my power to stop it, but outright killing would be tuff for me (though innocents being killed would probably make me choose protecting innocents over the life of a shooter.
Ps I didn't forget your question. I will get back to you
Thank you to you and others for providing examples.
To answer your question, no I do not wish I were armed. I thankfully live in a society where I have no fear of being attacked. And I believe the cons of being armed in public outweigh any benefits.
AdkEric
Branched out member
- Location
- Adirondacks
I'm not on the gun ban side, but consider the follwoing: As a former law enforcement officer (5 years, brief stint, not my cup of tea and couldn't see doing another 15-20 yrs till retirement) and a gun owner, I will say this. If you're in a shopping center, movie theater, whatever and there is a gunman shooting the place up, get yourself and your family to an exit and gtfo. Don't try to be the vigilante hero that enganges the gunman. When LE makes entry, we are looking for a person with a gun. Subject descriptions are usually vague and shrieked to a dispatcher by a panicked caller. You don't want to be moving around tactically with a gun drawn as the LE team is clearing an area. Fine way to get yourself shot. If the gunman is between you and the exit and poses a direct threat to you, then do what you gotta do, but remember, you have to own every shot you take. You miss and hit some panicked shopper also headed for the exit, we call that manslaughter, even if you were attempting to defend yourself, acting in "good faith," etc. I could go on for hours regarding proper training for these scenarios, but we're already off topic.
climbhightree
Branched out member
- Location
- Lebanon, Pa USA
I understand the potential issues of being shot by the cops. And also the potential of a missing and hitting someone else, the legal issue with that. Getting shot by the police would suck, but in my mind an acceptable risk...and I would not want the cops to be punished in any way for it. Me killing an innocent would be horrible...something that would be extremely hard to live with. That being said, If I carried a gun, I'd be darn sure to practice, a lot, to be sure of my aim in different scenarios and elevated heart rate etc.
I agree with getting family and others out safely, if possible. That would be my primary goal.
So as a former officer, you would get your family out and leave with them? Not looking to shame you or anything, I believe this is a very personal choice and no real wrong answer. I'm just curious as what you would do with your more hands on experience.
