Gun violence (1 Viewer)

In case of knives you may want to check the number of mass murders by these two weapons.
The mortality rate of a stab wound as opposed to a bullet wound is about half.

I'm always perplexed by the average joe who feels he needs to carry for self defense. What are you afraid of? Where do you go or what things do you do that puts you in such fear? In my private life I cant think of anywhere I go or do that I feel a real need to be armed. My professional life is much different. I know people around me are armed. Most of them are the criminals you so fear. I go to crack houses and crime scenes and knock on doors that I dont know whats behind them. I go up in the mountains to places where no one would ever hear me yell for help. In 40 years of doing so, including nearly 20 years in NYC, I've never pulled my weapon. The last close call was when I walked into the middle of a drug deal between known gang members. I walked by them and did what I had to do. When I came out they were standing around their car with baseball bats. It was a tense moment.
 
It's great that you feel that way @moke123 because I think ultimately that is the goal: to have peace of mind.
Personally, I don't feel much of a worry to carry, but I am also not naive enough to forget I live in a nice part of town with comparatively little crime.
If I lived in different areas I would want my daughter/wife armed and possibly myself simply because crimes are committed on a regular basis against unsuspecting people and there is always a chance the next one will be "you" (me/them etc).
Me, I don't think wanting that extra layer of insurance to guard against the chance of being the next crime victim, in the midst of a violent world, is anything particularly "fearful" - I don't see it as anything different than any other precaution, protection, insurance.
We could go on and on, I could ask you why you need a home security system, why have car insurance and talk about how low your chances of needing them are, but obviously crime does occur and some people wish to give themselves what they believe is an extra layer of security.

To me it is just common sense to protect yourself and your family. IF we lived in a very, very low-crime country, then your question would make sense....like, 'why would you need a weapon??'......but given we don't, your question seems more aimed at provocation (i.e. 'what are you afraid of') than an honest one, as you already well know why people might look around them, see a lot of violent crime, and wish to protect themselves..
 
The society, Police and your government must protect you not your side arm.

I do not disagree, but on CBS national news this morning, they showed a report that says that about 50% of all homicides go unsolved due to staffing shortages and a citizen-based distrust of police in many neighborhoods with high violence rates. Police responses to 911 assistance calls are now terribly slow. In New Orleans, a non-urgent 911 call might take hours. (By non-urgent, I mean "perpetrator no longer on scene" or similar.) We have a police force that is 300 members short of their target. The police superintendent is busting his buns trying to beef up the force but is not making rapid strides. I don't think it is a lack of effort on his part, either.

This leads to the question: If your police department can't protect you, who will? If that answer isn't obvious, then we have a logic problem. I really feel sorry for the folks in those cities that had "Defund the police" movements. They are reaping their harvest of violence in neighborhoods that are too dangerous to enter even for single-person police units. What is a person to do? Hint: The answer isn't "Roll over and play dead" because perps these days shoot bodies just to be sure they don't leave witnesses.
 
Agree. We both know why police departments can't currently find enough people masochist enough that they are willing to join an organization where you are more likely to end up charged with a crime than the criminal is.

And I have a few ideas on why neighborhoods with high rates of crime don't trust the police. Stop and think about that preceding sentence for a moment...
Remember what your parents used to say: If you didn't do anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.
Of course they don't trust the police. Almost none of their own hands are clean. Innocent people have no qualms about interacting with police.
 
Police and your government must protect you not your side arm
The police cannot protect us when prosecutors choose to not prosecute criminals caught with guns. They don't prosecute the criminals because ultimately, it would have an effect like it did in NYC when stop-and-frisk was removing illegal guns before they got used. I think stop-and-frisk goes too far. I don't like the idea of stopping people on the street just because. However, once a criminal is caught with a gun while committing a crime, you can't just confiscate the gun and let him go. The criminal committed the crime, not the gun!!!!!
 
Police and your government must protect you not your side arm
The police cannot protect us when prosecutors choose to not prosecute criminals caught with guns. They don't prosecute the criminals because ultimately, it would have an effect like it did in NYC when stop-and-frisk was removing illegal guns before they got used. I think stop-and-frisk goes too far. I don't like the idea of stopping people on the street just because. However, once a criminal is caught with a gun while committing a crime, you can't just confiscate the gun and let him go. The criminal committed the crime, not the gun!!!!!
 
It seems rather easy when you've had a millennium to get your act together. But I digress...
 
@Steve R. Again I don't judge anyone. But I think it's the most desperate way of justifying gun by comparing gun death rates with car accidents.
I see some people occasionally use this method to justify their thoughts. If Gun kills, so do cars, so do airplanes, so do knives, and a lot more.
Should we really ban them all?

I really don't know how to answer this. And even if I did, I wouldn't because as I explained, I don't see you or others looking for a solution.

Don't forget, there's a difference between a death caused by an accident, and a death by aiming and meaning to kill someone.
In case of knives you may want to check the number of mass murders by these two weapons.
You seem to be comfortable with kids being shot by their own parents because you are a 334 Million community and mistakes may happen. But you forget to tell me how precious any fallen soul is.

I really mean no offence, I only don't find the right words to choose. It's mostly because of the lack of knowing English better.
My apologies if the chosen words seem somehow offending.
Your posture is logically flaws based on moral relativism. By slicing and dicing the facts to support a narrative that you advocate, you contend that your "position" is the only "correct" interpretation. Deaths caused by an accident are an accident. To say that one type of accident (baby dies in hot car) constitutes a valid accident, but then a person (child) who unfortunately dies by a gunshot, has not died through a valid accident is logically incorrect.

Your statement "You seem to be comfortable with kids being shot by their own parents because you are a 334 Million community and mistakes may happen. But you forget to tell me how precious any fallen soul is." is pure speculation which implies that the purpose of this unsubstantiated accusation is to throw "mud" on the positions of others that you disagree with. Recall that you claim "Again I don't judge anyone."

I only beg please don't forget : The society, Police and your government must protect you not your side arm.
In the US, it is not the job of the police to explicitly protect you, as an individual. The police are there to protect society as a whole, not to be a personal bodyguard for one individual.

Recall this recent incidence, where a person, who should have been in jail for criminal conduct was let out because of the District Attorneys soft on crime policies. So here we have the situation where your government is not protecting you. That raises the question; if criminals are not being sent to jail, they will be free to continue their criminal activities. Neither the police nor the individual will be safe in that situation.
 
Last edited:
And even if I did, I wouldn't because as I explained, I don't see you or others looking for a solution

I respectfully but wholeheartedly disagree with this. To some extent in this thread and numerous times in other threads, I and many others have clearly suggested what we think the solutions are. Perhaps you have not recognized them as such because they are different than what you think the solution should be? But to claim that you have not seen suggested solutions to the problem of USA violence, crime and suffering is simply untrue. I've discussed at great length many factors that I believe are involved ranging from the ever-increasing reduction in nuclear families and fathers particularly, how children are being raised, violence glorified in movies and TV, reasons youth grow up feeling empty unloved and become bitter/angry, insufficient punishment and crimes not being prosecuted, etc.

This also explains why some of us feel passionately about voting a certain way. In my (and some others') opinion, Republican party generally pushes the country in the 'better' directions that (I think) it ought to go and will greatly benefit from going, thus reducing some of these societal problems we face. Believe me, my passion for conservatism in politics is directly tied to what I sincerely believe will make people healthier, happier, more successful, more self-actualizing, and more peaceful. I don't vote Republican because of any free stuff I want from the government, I'm already doing fine. I vote that way because I want a better world for my grandkids, neighbors, and everyone. Sometimes a bit of discipline is required in life to get to a better place. Conservative policies represent exactly that - which isn't as easy to sell to certain people, (i.e., you'll have to let go of all your free government resources for a bit, but the end result is a self-sufficient person of character who isn't robbing from others to replace self-actualization), but in the longer run, I think they will preserve a reasonably decent nation.

You seem to be comfortable with kids being shot by their own parents because you are a 334 Million community and mistakes may happen. But you forget to tell me how precious any fallen soul is

This statement might be an effective indictment of our position, IF it were true that the ONLY violence being committed was by way of accidental deaths. However, that's not true. There are benefits to owning guns (in the general categories of self defense and some others less important), and they are also used to prevent criminal attacks.
So, even though it's obviously true that every life is precious, the fact that a life is lost due to __________ thing (whatever that may be), is not, by itself, a complete justification for banning ___________. All factors must be taken into account, wouldn't you agree?

If you are simply saying that you think maybe more could be done to prevent accidental deaths, I'm open to hearing that - since you brought up solutions, please feel free to suggest anything you may have in mind.

Personally I feel the same way about cars and traffic. A great number of deaths and injuries are caused by things that I would rather prohibit. Extremely large/heavy pickup trucks driven by idiots at high rates of speed would be near the top of the list. However, I have discovered that I am in a tiny minority - most people don't agree with me. Thus I have learned to accept those drivers (who are risking not just their lives but mine and my family's) as a necessary risk that I do my best to mitigate by defensive driving and trust God with the rest.
 
Last edited:
1656525855164.png


This is part of the reason gun sales are through the roof, just sayin.
 
Speaking of crime and violence, How'd you like yesterdays J6 hearing?
Remember what your parents used to say: If you didn't do anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.
Did your parents ever say anything like "If you didnt commit any crimes, you wont need a pardon?"
 
Speaking of crime and violence, How'd you like yesterdays J6 hearing?

Did your parents ever say anything like "If you didnt commit any crimes, you wont need a pardon?"

1 - The funniest thing was that no sooner had she finished her not-coincidentally-salacious-and-sensational "lunge" story, than several other people stepped up to say it was totally false and they will be willing to testify. Sounds like another Mary Trump to me, just one more person hoping to get a few million $ from their bestseller. You won't know this unless you read Fox, since all major liberal networks avoided bringing this up. At least, anywhere that I could see it on 4 major networks' top to bottom website headlines.

2 - I find the mere asking for pardons to be inconclusive. We both know that both political parties are at risk from the other party gaining power and engaging in prosecution of the minority party. Without delving into the merits, do you agree that that could be an explanation? Not meaning they knew they did wrong, just knowing the other party will get revenge.

The Democrats have been hammering the "they asked for pardons so they must be guilty" line, but conveniently ignore that their party is currently doing essentially the same thing, except now we're calling it "inquiries" - much more gentle :)


Lots of smart people retain lawyers (and such preventative measures) as soon as they realize someone with power has it out for them.
 
Last edited:
The impression given is that the police in USA are very slow to respond to an emergency call. Therefore, do you think communities will form vigilante groups to dish out justice and be judge, jury and executioners to alleged perpetrators?
We've all seen those people dressed in full battle gear, bullet proof vests and carrying various guns that smashed up Congress. Could these people roam the streets looking to apprehend a possible burglar or whatever?
Col
 
My impression (not scientific, just seems like it from hearing about things), is that the police are usually very fast to respond.
(Of course, "fast" is a relative term if someone is already in the act of accosting you, they could never be fast enough for many situations).

The place where things break down is in the prosecution. Democrats have helped many ultra-liberal prosecutors get elected, these prosecutors go soft on the criminal so he/she gets back out to commit the crime again - in some cases numerous times.
Republicans have tried to pass laws (such as "3 strikes and you're out"), but Democrats claim they are "racist", simply because certain races seem to be proportionally high going through the system.

Here's an example:

These gentlemen were picked up and found to be trafficking ENORMOUS amounts of a narcotic that has been killing 10's of 1000's of people across our nation. This is a decade in prison, easily. They were let out with no bail a few days later. And they are here illegally.

I don't need to tell you what the likelihood is that these people will not show up for their court date. It's ridiculous, no serious prosecution.
 
Last edited:
Isaac, I wish I could say you are right, but police response in some cities is very slow.

Colin, we have already seen vigilante-style groups. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenosha_unrest_shooting

The problem with news coverage these days is that the groups who blocked the Black Lives Matter and antifa demonstrations aren't in line with the liberal media and so get different levels of coverage.
 
@The_Doc_Man Yes, I know there is examples of both. Just what I hear the most seem to be people surprised at how quickly the police got there - but maybe, they're "surprised" because it's usually slow. The cities that are reducing police funding or being especially aggressive at targeting gray-area harsh policing are seeing hordes of police resigning or moving somewhere they are more welcome. Then the residents suffer, and sometimes fight back against the liberal elites, as was seen here

Either way, we agree it's certainly nothing to rely on.

This country has had a crime problem for a long time and vigilantism has (in my opinion), gone down, not up. Therefore I don't think we'll be having a major problem with that unless crime continues to get even worse and isn't dealt with.
 
1 - The funniest thing was that no sooner had she finished her not-coincidentally-salacious-and-sensational "lunge" story, than several other people stepped up to say it was totally false and they will be willing to testify. Sounds like another Mary Trump to me, just one more person hoping to get a few million $ from their bestseller. You won't know this unless you read Fox, since all major liberal networks avoided bringing this up. At least, anywhere that I could see it on 4 major networks' top to bottom website headlines.
Yea I know. I saw it on twitter. "He couldn't have done that cause theres a glass partition in the beast" Except they were in a suburban.
She was relating what they said to her not that she witnessed it so its not really a big deal in the long run. Those SS agents have already testified to the committee weeks ago. Let them come back and dispute it. They dont dispute that trump was insistant in going to the capitol with full knowledge that his armed supporters were going there.


Without delving into the merits, do you agree that that could be an explanation?
No, My parents taught me that if I did nothing wrong I have nothing to worry about. I've had run ins with the FBI and other law enforcement agencies and didn't feel the need to hire a lawyer.
 
It's like the Russian pee tapes remember? That was supposed to be the end of Trump.

All fabricated nonsense to try and subvert an election the left didn't want. It's kinda like an insurrection.😆😆
 
Yea I know. I saw it on twitter. "He couldn't have done that cause theres a glass partition in the beast" Except they were in a suburban.
She was relating what they said to her not that she witnessed it so its not really a big deal in the long run. Those SS agents have already testified to the committee weeks ago. Let them come back and dispute it. They dont dispute that trump was insistant in going to the capitol with full knowledge that his armed supporters were going there.



No, My parents taught me that if I did nothing wrong I have nothing to worry about. I've had run ins with the FBI and other law enforcement agencies and didn't feel the need to hire a lawyer.
You got bad advice then :)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom