Dallas Church Shooting

[RandomGuy]

I have seen many gun advocates suggest that more guns everywhere will make people in general safer. Do you agree with that or not? Why or why not?





Why should I defend anything I didn't say?


I haven't asked you to defend anything you didn't say.

I have asked you what your actual position is.

:lol no-take meltdown.


Do I agree that you've seen what you claim to have seen? Do I agree with what "gun advocates (whatever that means)" said?

If the former, sure.. I have no reason to disagree you saw that.

If the latter, don't paraphrase and ask if I agree. Show the quote. I am not going to click links and read articles - and get to the fucking point.


:lol no-take meltdown continues.


So I never said any of the shit you're asking me to confirm. Got it. See how easy that was?

:lol no-take meltdown continues.

RG: Some people say chocolate ice cream is the best flavor of ice cream. Do you agree? or think another flavor is better?

DMC: I never said shit about liking chocolate ice-cream, don't ask me to defend that statement.

:rollin

[RandomGuy]

Make a statement of your own,.

Does have a take, demands others have a take. :rollin

[RandomGuy]

..

[Spurminator]

That guy is a badass in part because he's an ex-FBI agent who runs a gun range and qualifies as a sharpshooter from all positions, quarterly.

What are the chances?

Conservatives love these stories because they imagine themselves to be just as capable of stopping an invasion with a kickass headshot if only the libs would quit trying to take them guns away.

[RandomGuy]

Conservatives love these stories because they imagine themselves to be just as capable of stopping an invasion with a kickass headshot if only the libs would quit trying to take them guns away.

Exactly.

I am waiting for the first such incident where some untrained Rambo wannabe gets his (and it will be a man) ass shot by the cops who show up and have to make a split-second threat assessment, or some idiots shoot each other, each thinking that other is the shooter.

The vast majority of people are much less well-trained, and that increases the potential for accidents and other negative outcomes. More guns invariably means more accidental shootings, and more successful suicides. That is what the data says.

[TheGreatYacht]

Exactly.

I am waiting for the first such incident where some untrained Rambo wannabe gets his (and it will be a man) ass shot by the cops who show up and have to make a split-second threat assessment, or some idiots shoot each other, each thinking that other is the shooter.

The vast majority of people are much less well-trained, and that increases the potential for accidents and other negative outcomes. More guns invariably means more accidental shootings, and more successful suicides. That is what the data says.

:lol it's bound to happen tbh...

[DMC]

Conservatives love these stories because they imagine themselves to be just as capable of stopping an invasion with a kickass headshot if only the libs would quit trying to take them guns away.

:lol liberal narrative
:lol hero is a conservative
:lol "just as capable" vs cowering behind a bench, waiting to die

[DMC]

:lol no-take meltdown continues.

RG: Some people say chocolate ice cream is the best flavor of ice cream. Do you agree? or think another flavor is better?

DMC: I never said shit about liking chocolate ice-cream, don't ask me to defend that statement.

:rollin


Does have a take, demands others have a take. :rollin


..

RG meltdown again :lol

[ChumpDumper]

Chumpy going on an all-nighter again. Livin' the dream :lol

You posted later than I did.

About me.

I am your dream.:lol

[RandomGuy]

I have seen many gun advocates suggest that more guns everywhere will make people in general safer. Do you agree with that or not? Why or why not?





Why should I defend anything I didn't say?


I haven't asked you to defend anything you didn't say.

I have asked you what your actual position is.

:lol no-take meltdown.


Do I agree that you've seen what you claim to have seen? Do I agree with what "gun advocates (whatever that means)" said?

If the former, sure.. I have no reason to disagree you saw that.

If the latter, don't paraphrase and ask if I agree. Show the quote. I am not going to click links and read articles - and get to the fucking point.


:lol no-take meltdown continues.


So I never said any of the shit you're asking me to confirm. Got it. See how easy that was?


:lol no-take meltdown continues.

RG: Some people say chocolate ice cream is the best flavor of ice cream. Do you agree? or think another flavor is better?

DMC: I never said shit about liking chocolate ice-cream, don't ask me to defend that statement.

:rollin



RG meltdown again :lol

"i'm not a meltdown, you're a meltdown"

:rollin

Still can't answer simple questions. Still don't understand logical fallacies.

You got one schtick, which is personal attacks, and can't even do that effectively. You are on the same level as ducks koriwhat, and derptacular. Better spelling and grammar, tho. Boutons at least has a viewpoint that he can support, in that he is above your level which is ironic, given your feeble attempts at putting him down.

[Spurtacular]

You posted later than I did.

About me.

I am your dream.:lol

Sounds like another big tiny w for ya.

Now tell us how it's really only about DMC's L.

lol dump

[Chris]

:lol liberal narrative
:lol hero is a conservative
:lol "just as capable" vs cowering behind a bench, waiting to die

:lol "kickass headshot"

[Trainwreck2100]

Exactly.

I am waiting for the first such incident where some untrained Rambo wannabe gets his (and it will be a man) ass shot by the cops who show up and have to make a split-second threat assessment, or some idiots shoot each other, each thinking that other is the shooter.

The vast majority of people are much less well-trained, and that increases the potential for accidents and other negative outcomes. More guns invariably means more accidental shootings, and more successful suicides. That is what the data says.


I believe what happens before that is some Rambo kills an innocent trying to shoot the bad guy

[DMC]

I believe what happens before that is some Rambo kills an innocent trying to shoot the bad guy

The left leaned heavily on this "some Rambo" narrative while trying to oppose the CHL many years ago in Texas. They said there would be shootings in the streets, road rage shootings, Rambos everywhere.. but it never materialized.

You're like children who make up stories to pretend you know what the hell is going on, like you'd have any idea.

[SpursforSix]

Some comments regarding the crazy guy...


He was separately charged with arson that year after allegedly starting a fire in a cotton field by tying tampons soaked in lamp oil to the crop. Earlier on the day of that fire, Kinnunen soaked a football in the accelerant, lit it on fire and then threw it back and forth with his son, who was a minor, according to the arrest affidavit. The boy told police he was afraid his father would get mad if he asked to stop.

[ElNono]

How do we “strive for better” ElNono? Can you provide some examples of potentially “effective” gun control legislation. DMC supports additional effective gun control legislation but he’s incapable of expressing an actual opinion on what that might entail. You seem to be a pretty straight shooter. What are your thoughts?

I’ve mentioned it before. I think there’s value on universal background checks. I think a person diagnosed with depression, coming out of a traumatic divorce, and other difficult life situations need to be monitored closer. If needed, turn over any weapons they own until cleared by a professional. I also think there should be ongoing (maybe every two years?) psychological assessments on gun owners. Again, if you’re deemed a danger to yourself or other people, you have to get right before you can get them back.

Obviously, all this only works with additional enforcement and closing loopholes on the gun trade.

But, you know, last time I spoke about some of these things, TSA was adamant he wouldn’t want to be at the ‘mercy’ of a medical professional. I even offered having the ability to have a second opinion.

At some point they just have to say they’re just fine with the way things are, and all these senseless killings are the price to pay for muh gun freedom

[DMC]

:lol "kickass headshot"

Only firearm experience from a first person shooter. Thinks everyone but LEOs have about the same experience as him.

[ElNono]

Yeah, I know you made a 98 on your exam, Billy.. and you were failing prior.. but 100 would be better. Chop chop

There are creative little ways people avoid giving credit where it's due. This is one of them.

Would you rate this incident a 98/100? I’ll put a 65, maybe 70 on it.

[DMC]

Would you rate this incident a 98/100? I’ll put a 65, maybe 70 on it.

It depends on how you look at it.

If you think the grade includes the guy walking in with the gun, then they shit the bed on that right away. However if you consider how the people dealt with the guy with the gun, I'd consider that in the mid 90's. One guy who was shot was drawing his weapon. The other guy was unarmed. The invader was the 3rd fatality. In a congregation of that size, I'd say it's a solid 95. If I was sitting in that church, I'd give it a bonus 105. You can really only consider it 70 or so if you draw an ideal scenario where the bad guy never got a gun to begin with, or he was stopped outside the church. Infinite regression comes into play though.

I'd be interested in knowing what you think the ideal scenario would be - given the fact an armed guy intent on killing people walks into a crowded room with a shotgun. How many points are extra lives worth?

[Blake]

Would you rate this incident a 98/100? I’ll put a 65, maybe 70 on it.

Two people died so that's minus two points on the DMC grading scale

Still an A+ though

[Spurtacular]

Two people died so that's minus two points on the DMC grading scale

Still an A+ though

One of the rare times you've fired off a joke that works.

See, I'm not an insecure cuck, so I can admit that. :lol

[spurraider21]

I’ve mentioned it before. I think there’s value on universal background checks. I think a person diagnosed with depression, coming out of a traumatic divorce, and other difficult life situations need to be monitored closer. If needed, turn over any weapons they own until cleared by a professional. I also think there should be ongoing (maybe every two years?) psychological assessments on gun owners. Again, if you’re deemed a danger to yourself or other people, you have to get right before you can get them back.

Obviously, all this only works with additional enforcement and closing loopholes on the gun trade.

But, you know, last time I spoke about some of these things, TSA was adamant he wouldn’t want to be at the ‘mercy’ of a medical professional. I even offered having the ability to have a second opinion.

At some point they just have to say they’re just fine with the way things are, and all these senseless killings are the price to pay for muh gun freedom
mhm

[Blake]

One of the rare times you've fired off a joke that works.

See, I'm not an insecure cuck, so I can admit that. :lol

If you ever finally fire off a joke that works I'll let you know

[spurraider21]

somebody builds home with unneccessarily flammable material, house catches fire, fire department puts out fire, saving 75% of home

you can laud the fire department for doing an excellent job, but can also look into building regulations and say that the house could have been built better. prevention >> mitigation

[DMC]

somebody builds home with unneccessarily flammable material, house catches fire, fire department puts out fire, saving 75% of home

you can laud the fire department for doing an excellent job, but can also look into building regulations and say that the house could have been built better. prevention >> mitigation

But we're judging the response, not the shooter. The church wasn't built to be shot up. The shooter is a given. You'd need a completely different test to judge the shooter.

[Spurtacular]

If you ever finally fire off a joke that works I'll let you know

You don't have to demonstrate that you're an insecure cuck. We all know that already.

[Blake]

But we're judging the response, not the shooter. The church wasn't built to be shot up. The shooter is a given. You'd need a completely different test to judge the shooter.

The shooter shouldn't be a given. That's the point, dipshit.

[Blake]

You don't have to demonstrate that you're an insecure cuck. We all know that already.

Like I said, I'll let you know

[Spurtacular]

Like I said, I'll let you know

You'll let me know shit, cuck.

[DMC]

The shooter shouldn't be a given. That's the point, dipshit.

This goes back to what I said - neither you nor I can change the fact that the shooter is a given. Proof of that is that you've done nothing to change it. The only other possible answer is that you chose not to do anything about it.

So can you do anything about it? I can tell you that I cannot stop someone in Dallas from walking into a crowded room and opening fire. From that perspective it's a given. It happens a lot, ergo a given. You can plant your wishes right next to the dead bodies, neither will ever bear fruit.

[Spurtacular]

This goes back to what I said - neither you nor I can change the fact that the shooter is a given. Proof of that is that you've done nothing to change it. The only other possible answer is that you chose not to do anything about it.

So can you do anything about it? I can tell you that I cannot stop someone in Dallas from walking into a crowded room and opening fire. From that perspective it's a given. It happens a lot, ergo a given. You can plant your wishes right next to the dead bodies, neither will ever bear fruit.

The only thing Blake can do is helplessly watch brown dudes fuck whatever woman was stupid enough to get saddled with him.

[DMC]

The only thing Blake can do is helplessly watch brown dudes fuck whatever woman was stupid enough to get saddled with him.

The brown dudes shouldn't be a given. That's the point.

[Trainwreck2100]

The left leaned heavily on this "some Rambo" narrative while trying to oppose the CHL many years ago in Texas. They said there would be shootings in the streets, road rage shootings, Rambos everywhere.. but it never materialized.

You're like children who make up stories to pretend you know what the hell is going on, like you'd have any idea.

The irony of this statement is I'm sure lost on you.

[DMC]

The irony of this statement is I'm sure lost on you.

If you say so, sparky.

[ElNono]

It depends on how you look at it.

If you think the grade includes the guy walking in with the gun, then they shit the bed on that right away. However if you consider how the people dealt with the guy with the gun, I'd consider that in the mid 90's. One guy who was shot was drawing his weapon. The other guy was unarmed. The invader was the 3rd fatality. In a congregation of that size, I'd say it's a solid 95. If I was sitting in that church, I'd give it a bonus 105. You can really only consider it 70 or so if you draw an ideal scenario where the bad guy never got a gun to begin with, or he was stopped outside the church. Infinite regression comes into play though.

I'd be interested in knowing what you think the ideal scenario would be - given the fact an armed guy intent on killing people walks into a crowded room with a shotgun. How many points are extra lives worth?

It’s all opinion, yours certainly respectable. To me, any time we have innocent casualties, I really can’t put it over 80. If you’re just rating the response given the situation, you’re grading on a scale (which is fine, but it’s part of the whole situation).

[DMC]

It’s all opinion, yours certainly respectable. To me, any time we have innocent casualties, I really can’t put it over 80. If you’re just rating the response given the situation, you’re grading on a scale (which is fine, but it’s part of the whole situation).

The point of the thread is the response, not the fact that people still shoot up populated "safe spaces". That's another issue. If you were talking to a friend or family member about what they should do to protect themselves, you'd likely not say anything about what congress should do. You'd likely assume society is a constant, and that being prepared is the variable (along with circumstance - luck). I would agree that ideally we would never encounter these issues. The truth is that we could, and with that hanging over my head I have to weigh my options. I'd rather be the one pulling a firearm to address the cause than the one cowering and waiting for the gunman to find me, if those are my choices.

There are at least a couple schools of thought on this issue:

1. We have a problem - mass shootings/attempts are a huge issue that needs to be addressed by legislation
2. I have a problem - the issues of society are beyond my individual ability to solve, and I can only prepare for the possibility that I might be involved in one of these events if I frequent high population areas, especially gun free zones.

Both of these can be true, but if you only consider the 1st one, you are leaving your well being to chance, and being caught in a situation like that, you won't get to decide once the event begins to unfold.

[DMC]

The victims were armed? I guess they were too slow on the draw.

One of the stupidest comments in this thread. Cops get ambushed all the time. Yes one of the victims was drawing their weapon when he was shot. They are all victims of the attack, they don't need to be casualties for that to be true.

[Th'Pusher]

The point of the thread is the response, not the fact that people still shoot up populated "safe spaces". That's another issue. If you were talking to a friend or family member about what they should do to protect themselves, you'd likely not say anything about what congress should do. You'd likely assume society is a constant, and that being prepared is the variable (along with circumstance - luck). I would agree that ideally we would never encounter these issues. The truth is that we could, and with that hanging over my head I have to weigh my options. I'd rather be the one pulling a firearm to address the cause than the one cowering and waiting for the gunman to find me, if those are my choices.

There are at least a couple schools of thought on this issue:

1. We have a problem - mass shootings/attempts are a huge issue that needs to be addressed by legislation
2. I have a problem - the issues of society are beyond my individual ability to solve, and I can only prepare for the possibility that I might be involved in one of these events if I frequent high population areas, especially gun free zones.

Both of these can be true, but if you only consider the 1st one, you are leaving your well being to chance, and being caught in a situation like that, you won't get to decide once the event begins to unfold.

What’s the probability #2 occurs and is it worth the risk of being prepared for the possibility it occurs? What about the people who overestimate the probability of #2 and prepare irresponsibly? Do you think we should do everything in our power to make sure that the people who choose to prepare for the improbable, prepare for it responsibly?

[DMC]

What’s the probability #2 occurs and is it worth the risk of being prepared for the possibility it occurs? What about the people who overestimate the probability of #2 and prepare irresponsibly? Do you think we should do everything in our power to make sure that the people who choose to prepare for the improbable, prepare for it responsibly?

You're again focusing on the macro. You're suggesting possibly we have a problem . It doesn't address the second school of thought - that I have a problem. What other people do isn't my responsibility either. However I don't see that happening. The trend is for concealed carry to be more and more the thing in every state. 30 years ago it was almost nowhere. Are people randomly shooting each other in fear of mass shootings?

[ElNono]

The point of the thread is the response, not the fact that people still shoot up populated "safe spaces". That's another issue. If you were talking to a friend or family member about what they should do to protect themselves, you'd likely not say anything about what congress should do. You'd likely assume society is a constant, and that being prepared is the variable (along with circumstance - luck). I would agree that ideally we would never encounter these issues. The truth is that we could, and with that hanging over my head I have to weigh my options. I'd rather be the one pulling a firearm to address the cause than the one cowering and waiting for the gunman to find me, if those are my choices.

There are at least a couple schools of thought on this issue:

1. We have a problem - mass shootings/attempts are a huge issue that needs to be addressed by legislation
2. I have a problem - the issues of society are beyond my individual ability to solve, and I can only prepare for the possibility that I might be involved in one of these events if I frequent high population areas, especially gun free zones.

Both of these can be true, but if you only consider the 1st one, you are leaving your well being to chance, and being caught in a situation like that, you won't get to decide once the event begins to unfold.

I just want to point out that the thread title mentioned the incident, not the resolution. I don’t want to speak for SR21, but I think that’s what he was referencing. I certainly was. I can’t easily detach one thing from the other. Whether the resolution statistically might’ve worked out for the better, I feel analyzing the whole isn’t a disservice or criticism of that, but that the topic itself is fairly larger to try to narrow down.

On the second part of your post, I understand your prerogative, but I just don’t share it. This probably goes more towards the philosophical, and I can only speak for myself. I can’t ask anybody else to live the way I do, so obviously this is entirely personal (and the choices you listed are just as much). I don’t actively spend time thinking of scenarios where there’s a mass shooter, or a drunk driver runs me over, or I’m diagnosed with insta-death grade 22 leukemia, or other relatively random situation that might end my life at any given time. I try to enjoy every day as much as I can, fully aware that it ends at some point, and such is life. I’m not scared about it and I’m also not suicidal or anything like it. I love life but should it end tomorrow, I had a heck of a fucking nice ride. The only reason I think we can do better is because I do think we can. It’s not going to be overnight and it’s not going to be a silver bullet. Again, this is a very complex problem in many levels, but that shouldn’t really preclude us from thinking and trying ideas to try to chip at it, even if we have to take a couple of step backs to move forward.

[DMC]

I carry a first aid kit in my trunk along with blankets and lanterns/flashlights. I don't spend time thinking about what could happen while I am driving. I know what can happen so I consider rational due diligence to be prudent. We might disagree with what's rational.

[Th'Pusher]

I carry a first aid kit in my trunk along with blankets and lanterns/flashlights. I don't spend time thinking about what could happen while I am driving. I know what can happen so I consider rational due diligence to be prudent. We might disagree with what's rational.

There is very little risk to you or anyone else as a result of you carrying a first aid kit or blankets or lanterns or flashlights. That’s not the case with a firearm. When that variable is introduced while also considering the probability of you “having a problem”, then yeah, I think your solution to your potential problem is irrational, and quite frankly irresponsible. But it’s your right.

[pgardn]

Good guys with guns kill bad guy with gun. Amazing what arming the victims does for the outcome.

This will always be the outcome.
Now I’m comfortable in church.

[pgardn]

The most important thing that had to take place first for church security was simple in this case:

And it was still messy.

Alarms went off in Jack Wilson’s head the moment a man wearing a fake beard, a wig, a hat and a long coat walked into a Texas church for Sunday services.

[ElNono]

I carry a first aid kit in my trunk along with blankets and lanterns/flashlights. I don't spend time thinking about what could happen while I am driving. I know what can happen so I consider rational due diligence to be prudent. We might disagree with what's rational.

Sure, I do due diligence too. However, we all also do risk assessment based on our environment and ourselves. And there I find flaws too. We’re not always really good judges of ourselves. Psychological state is huge. We also tend to get comfortable and at times, sloppy. It happens in all aspects of life. A large amount of accidents happen because of that.

Part of that risk assessment is introspection. Where do you draw the line for worst case? Where do you put statistical odds of events? All very personal, very different from person to person and even environment to environment.

[DMC]

There is very little risk to you or anyone else as a result of you carrying a first aid kit or blankets or lanterns or flashlights. That’s not the case with a firearm. When that variable is introduced while also considering the probability of you “having a problem”, then yeah, I think your solution to your potential problem is irrational, and quite frankly irresponsible. But it’s your right.

There are over 18.5 million CHL permits issued in the US. How many events like you described have occurred in the CHL community vs the non CHL community? I think your concern is irrational and not at all supported by the facts.

[DMC]

The most important thing that had to take place first for church security was simple in this case:

And it was still messy.

Alarms went off in Jack Wilson’s head the moment a man wearing a fake beard, a wig, a hat and a long coat walked into a Texas church for Sunday services.


Those alarm bells would be worthless without the ability to respond.

[Spurminator]

One of the stupidest comments in this thread. Cops get ambushed all the time. Yes one of the victims was drawing their weapon when he was shot. They are all victims of the attack, they don't need to be casualties for that to be true.

:lol Was it really so slow in here an hour before midnight on NYE that, in a thread you already had 80+ posts in, you went back to the beginning to pick a fight with a comment from the first page?

The victims are the ones that are shot. The church didn't prevent more deaths by arming the congregation. They prevented deaths by arming trained, qualified, and identified security personnel. No one is opposed to that.

[DMC]

:lol Was it really so slow in here an hour before midnight on NYE that, in a thread you already had 80+ posts in, you went back to the beginning to pick a fight with a comment from the first page?

The victims are the ones that are shot. The church didn't prevent more deaths by arming the congregation. They prevented deaths by arming trained, qualified, and identified security personnel. No one is opposed to that.

“We can’t prevent every incident, we can’t prevent mental illness from occurring, and we can’t prevent every crazy person from pulling a gun, but we can be prepared like this church was,” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton told reporters Monday.

I side with the Texas AG.

You made a really stupid comment without knowing any of the facts. Just own it.

[Spurminator]

“We can’t prevent every incident, we can’t prevent mental illness from occurring, and we can’t prevent every crazy person from pulling a gun, but we can be prepared like this church was,” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton told reporters Monday.

I side with the Texas AG.

You made a really stupid comment without knowing any of the facts. Just own it.

What facts was I lacking? I knew the killer was shot by volunteer security. You apparently didn't, or you chose to lie and suggest that the killer was stopped by some run-of-the-mill concealed carriers.

Now that everyone knows the facts, you're continuing to try to dunk on a segment of the population that doesn't exist - an imaginary segment that opposes having armed security personnel to protect churches. Paxton's quote isn't even related to my post, and I don't disagree with it anyway. You're just throwing shit at the wall now. Go kiss your guns and relax.

[Th'Pusher]

There are over 18.5 million CHL permits issued in the US. How many events like you described have occurred in the CHL community vs the non CHL community? I think your concern is irrational and not at all supported by the facts.

I’m on firm ground stating that access to firearms is associated with an increased risk of firearm-related death and injury.

So your insistence on access to firearms to deal with an irrational fear increases the risk of death and injury to you and your family in particular. I think that’s irresponsible. But hey, it’s your right.

[DMC]

I’m on firm ground stating that access to firearms is associated with an increased risk of firearm-related death and injury.

That's a macro issue. Access to tobacco is associated with an increased risk of cancer. I don't smoke. It's a personal choice.


So your insistence on access to firearms to deal with an irrational fear increases the risk of death and injury to you and your family in particular. I think that’s irresponsible. But hey, it’s your right.
Just as knives in the kitchen, electrical outlets in the home, a tub deep enough to drown in, a swimming pool, etc... increases the risk of injury or death. These are risk vs reward decisions people make. There's obviously a risk in calling 911, you could be shot on accident (like what happened to that poor woman in Dallas). Everything carries with it a certain amount of risk. If you don't trust your ability to provide a safe environment for your family if there's a gun in the home, you shouldn't own one. I am a strong supporter of the freedom to not own a gun and I think some people should be legally barred from ever possessing a firearm. I would not be against a requirement of training and testing before you could be given the right to carry a firearm. Oh wait, that exists already and I've been through it multiple times (plus military training). I think I'll be ok.

[Th'Pusher]

That's a macro issue. Access to tobacco is associated with an increased risk of cancer. I don't smoke. It's a personal choice.

Just as knives in the kitchen, electrical outlets in the home, a tub deep enough to drown in, a swimming pool, etc... increases the risk of injury or death. These are risk vs reward decisions people make. There's obviously a risk in calling 911, you could be shot on accident (like what happened to that poor woman in Dallas). Everything carries with it a certain amount of risk. If you don't trust your ability to provide a safe environment for your family if there's a gun in the home, you shouldn't own one. I am a strong supporter of the freedom to not own a gun and I think some people should be legally barred from ever possessing a firearm. I would not be against a requirement of training and testing before you could be given the right to carry a firearm. Oh wait, that exists already and I've been through it multiple times (plus military training). I think I'll be ok.

That’s great Rambo. You choose to put you, your family and others at greater risk of firearm related death and injury because of your irrational fear that you may need to protect yourself.

[DMC]

That’s great Rambo. You choose to put you, your family and others at greater risk of firearm related death and injury because of your irrational fear that you may need to protect yourself.

Hyperbole, as usual.

[Th'Pusher]

Hyperbole, as usual.

It’s a fact.

[DMC]

It’s a fact.

No, you used an appeal to emotion. You didn't give any statistics to show the actual risk vs reward. You didn't quantify the rationality (purely situational concept you couldn't know anyhow). And I am not Rambo.

This is why no one takes your comments seriously. You go off the rails with panicky jargon. Oh noes! You'll get your entire family killed because you wanted to go to a theme park! Car accidents happen! Don't you care? Ok Mario Andretti!

[Th'Pusher]

No, you used an appeal to emotion. You didn't give any statistics to show the actual risk vs reward. You didn't quantify the rationality (purely situational concept you couldn't know anyhow). And I am not Rambo.

This is why no one takes your comments seriously. You go off the rails with panicky jargon. Oh noes! You'll get your entire family killed because you wanted to go to a theme park! Car accidents happen! Don't you care? Ok Mario Andretti!

It’s a fact. You, your family and others are more likely to be injured or killed by a firearm because you possesses a firearm. I can back that up with stats all day, but you know that already.

As you stated before, we can disagree on what we consider to be rational.

[boutons_deux]

It’s a fact. You, your family and others are more likely to be injured or killed by a firearm because you possesses a firearm. I can back that up with stats all day, but you know that already.

yep, gun(s) in the house means more gun murders and gun injuries, death in the house, esp dead wives.

That's why docs are REGULATED from discussing guns, as "public/personal health hazard" with patients

[Blake]

There are over 18.5 million CHL permits issued in the US. How many events like you described have occurred in the CHL community vs the non CHL community? I think your concern is irrational and not at all supported by the facts.

Where can I find my local CHL community so I can go stand in the middle of it and feel safer? Is there a website?

[Blake]

That's a macro issue. Access to tobacco is associated with an increased risk of cancer. I don't smoke. It's a personal choice.

Just as knives in the kitchen, electrical outlets in the home, a tub deep enough to drown in, a swimming pool, etc... increases the risk of injury or death. These are risk vs reward decisions people make. There's obviously a risk in calling 911, you could be shot on accident (like what happened to that poor woman in Dallas). Everything carries with it a certain amount of risk. If you don't trust your ability to provide a safe environment for your family if there's a gun in the home, you shouldn't own one. I am a strong supporter of the freedom to not own a gun and I think some people should be legally barred from ever possessing a firearm. I would not be against a requirement of training and testing before you could be given the right to carry a firearm. Oh wait, that exists already and I've been through it multiple times (plus military training). I think I'll be ok.

Lol "I'm a strong supporter of the freedom to not own a gun".

Because there are those out that support forced ownership

[DMC]

It’s a fact. You, your family and others are more likely to be injured or killed by a firearm because you possesses a firearm. I can back that up with stats all day, but you know that already.

As you stated before, we can disagree on what we consider to be rational.

If you fear guns and lack the self discipline required to safely store and operate a firearm, it's rational to not own one. Likewise, if I possess the self discipline to safely store and operate a firearm, it's rational for me to own one. Neither of us should be considered irrational based on our different circumstances and outlooks. It would only be irrational if one of us did something that doesn't jive with our outlooks and abilities. This assumes we are of sound mind.

[DMC]

Where can I find my local CHL community so I can go stand in the middle of it and feel safer? Is there a website?

You might not qualify. Check your local gun ranges for information on license to carry or check the DPS website.

[DMC]

Lol "I'm a strong supporter of the freedom to not own a gun".

Because there are those out that support forced ownership

(CNN)As the debate over guns continues in Washington and in communities across the country, there's at least one place where owning a gun is technically required by law.

In Kennesaw, Georgia, local law says that "every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm."
"If you're going to commit a crime in Kennesaw and you're the criminal -- are you going to take a chance that that homeowner is a law-abiding citizen?" asked Kennesaw Mayor Derek Easterling.
Wayne Arnold is one of those citizens. Among the weapons he keeps at home are an AR-15-style .223 caliber rifle, a variety of handguns and more.
"It gives me the ability to protect myself as opposed to being somewhere where you weren't allowed to have a firearm or it was frowned upon," said Arnold.

You really should do a Google search before opening your suck hole.

[Th'Pusher]

If you fear guns and lack the self discipline required to safely store and operate a firearm, it's rational to not own one. Likewise, if I possess the self discipline to safely store and operate a firearm, it's rational for me to own one. Neither of us should be considered irrational based on our different circumstances and outlooks. It would only be irrational if one of us did something that doesn't jive with our outlooks and abilities. This assumes we are of sound mind.

I don’t fear guns. I just don’t see the need to own one. I don’t hunt and I’m not concerned about protecting myself or my property with a gun. It’s just not a fear I deal with. If it was a fear I deal with, like you do, I’m confident I could own a gun responsibly. That said, even if I was a responsible gun owner, like you claim to be, I’d still be increasing the likelihood of death or injury as a result of owning the firearm. That’s a fact.

[DMC]

I don’t fear guns. I just don’t see the need to own one. I don’t hunt and I’m not concerned about protecting myself or my property with a gun. It’s just not a fear I deal with. If it was a fear I deal with, like you do, I’m confident I could own a gun responsibly. That said, even if I was a responsible gun owner, like you claim to be, I’d still be increasing the likelihood of death or injury as a result of owning the firearm. That’s a fact.

How many guns would I have to acquire to increase the odds of death by firearm in my home to 100%?

[Th'Pusher]

How many guns would I have to acquire to increase the odds of death by firearm in my home to 100%?

Probably a lot. I have no idea.

For me personally, it’s not about the statistics. I just don’t live in a state a fear where I feel the need to own a gun. The fact that owning a firearm increases the the likelihood of death or injury to me, my family and others by any measure, is all the more reason to not own one.

You’re good though. The Heller decision said you have a right to own a gun for personal protection even if that right increases the likelihood of death or injury as a result of ownership.

[boutons_deux]

‘Gun worship is conservative virtue-signaling’:

Former Republican goes off on GOP gun culture

for being a litmus test for Republican voters.

U.S. Naval War College Prof. Tom Nichols made the argument on Monday, following a day of chest-pounding by gun enthusiasts.

“Even when I was a Republican,

I never understood people who

measure freedom by how many of us walk around with guns.

This is a cultural change,

the spreading of the gun culture from a corner of the GOP to the entire conservative moment,”

“The spread of gun worship is conservative virtue-signaling,” he charged.

“Never liked it when I was among my old tribe, and

it’s gotten worse

as ‘conservatives’ try to figure out new markers for what makes them ‘patriots’

now that they’ve had to sell out so much actual patriotism to Trump,”

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/12/former-republican-goes-off-on-gop-gun-culture-gun-worship-is-conservative-virtue-signaling/ (https://www.rawstory.com/2019/12/former-republican-goes-off-on-gop-gun-culture-gun-worship-is-conservative-virtue-signaling/)

... metastasis of gun worship is just another symptom in the America-killing disease known as the Repug party and it cult base.

[DMC]

Probably a lot. I have no idea.

For me personally, it’s not about the statistics. I just don’t live in a state a fear where I feel the need to own a gun. The fact that owning a firearm increases the the likelihood of death or injury to me, my family and others by any measure, is all the more reason to not own one.

You’re good though. The Heller decision said you have a right to own a gun for personal protection even if that right increases the likelihood of death or injury as a result of ownership.

So what's your point? You seem to be concerned more about my family than about yours.

The fact that you think the risk increases if I put more guns in the safe should be enough to show you haven't thought it through before lodging your objections. Someone working in a gun store is really at high risk, and someone in a gun factory or armory is basically dead man walking.

[Th'Pusher]

So what's your point? You seem to be concerned more about my family than about yours.

The fact that you think the risk increases if I put more guns in the safe should be enough to show you haven't thought it through before lodging your objections. Someone working in a gun store is really at high risk, and someone in a gun factory or armory is basically dead man walking.

My point is that your personal decision to own a gun to protect yourself puts all of us at greater risk. You and your family in particular.

[DMC]

My point is that your personal decision to own a gun to protect yourself puts all of us at greater risk. You and your family in particular.

Now you live in fear.

[Th'Pusher]

Now you live in fear.

Nope. Just a statistical fact.

[DMC]

Nope. Just a statistical fact.

So you're not afraid of increased risk to your family? Why should I be?

[boutons_deux]

Nurse and Adjunct Professor, 61,

Killed by Celebratory Gunfire in Texas on New Year’s Day

https://lawandcrime.com/crazy/nurse-and-adjunct-professor-61-killed-by-celebratory-gunfire-in-texas-on-new-years-day/ (https://lawandcrime.com/crazy/nurse-and-adjunct-professor-61-killed-by-celebratory-gunfire-in-texas-on-new-years-day/)

shithole Texas, Fuck Yeah!

[Th'Pusher]

So you're not afraid of increased risk to your family? Why should I be?

I didn’t say you should be afraid. I simply stated a fact.

[DMC]

I didn’t say you should be afraid. I simply stated a fact.

Then it doesn't matter. Why do you care?

[Blake]

(CNN)As the debate over guns continues in Washington and in communities across the country, there's at least one place where owning a gun is technically required by law.

In Kennesaw, Georgia, local law says that "every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm."
"If you're going to commit a crime in Kennesaw and you're the criminal -- are you going to take a chance that that homeowner is a law-abiding citizen?" asked Kennesaw Mayor Derek Easterling.
Wayne Arnold is one of those citizens. Among the weapons he keeps at home are an AR-15-style .223 caliber rifle, a variety of handguns and more.
"It gives me the ability to protect myself as opposed to being somewhere where you weren't allowed to have a firearm or it was frowned upon," said Arnold.

You really should do a Google search before opening your suck hole.

K, I googled it.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/kennesaw-gun-law/

Lol you didn't read the entire Kennesaw gun ordinance.

Lolol you're so stupid.

[DMC]

K, I googled it.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/kennesaw-gun-law/

Lol you didn't read the entire Kennesaw gun ordinance.

Lolol you're so stupid.

I know what the law states, idiot.

It's an example of the "forced ownership" mentality. Some people do support it. Still, anyone with a brain knows I was saying you are free to not own a gun, so fretting over how dangerous a gun is in your home is wasted energy, you aren't required to own one. But keep ankle biting. It's your calling here.

[Th'Pusher]

Then it doesn't matter. Why do you care?

It matters at the macro level. I understand you want to make this all about you and your personal choices and responsibilities, but policy decisions are made at the macro level.

[DMC]

It matters at the macro level. I understand you want to make this all about you and your personal choices and responsibilities, but policy decisions are made at the macro level.

But not by you

[Th'Pusher]

But not by you

Not directly.

[DMC]

Not directly.

If you can change policy, go for it. Same with your lap dog Blake. You two go out and change policies. Then tell me "I told you so".

[Th'Pusher]

If you can change policy, go for it. Same with your lap dog Blake. You two go out and change policies. Then tell me "I told you so".

Well you want policy change too, right? You said you were all for more effective regulation.

[DMC]

Well you want policy change too, right? You said you were all for more effective regulation.
Sure, I want world peace too. I'll still carry a firearm in the meantime. Chop chop

[pgardn]

Those alarm bells would be worthless without the ability to respond.

Of course

security responded
trained individual

Maybe if he was trained in a superior manner he never would’ve let the guy in, that is a possibility

[Th'Pusher]

Sure, I want world peace too. I'll still carry a firearm in the meantime. Chop chop

As you agreed earlier, It’s a slow process that we’ll chip away at.

I don’t see the need to carry a firearm in the meantime.

[DMC]

Of course

security responded
trained individual

Maybe if he was trained in a superior manner he never would’ve let the guy in, that is a possibility

You can live in the world of what-if. I live in the world of what-is.

[Blake]

I know what the law states, idiot.

It's an example of the "forced ownership" mentality. Some people do support it. Still, anyone with a brain knows I was saying you are free to not own a gun, so fretting over how dangerous a gun is in your home is wasted energy, you aren't required to own one. But keep ankle biting. It's your calling here.

Bull shit. You didn't know what the law stated any more than you know what ankle biting means.

Lol you're a fucking idiot.

[Blake]

As you agreed earlier, It’s a slow process that we’ll chip away at.

I don’t see the need to carry a firearm in the meantime.

Unless you're terrified of the what ifs if the world around you

[DMC]

Bull shit. You didn't know what the law stated any more than you know what ankle biting means.

Lol you're a fucking idiot.

You criticize a position but offer no constructive alternative. That's ankle biting. That's your role here, along with being the Christian hater and self professed forum cuckold.

[Blake]

You criticize a position but offer no constructive alternative. That's ankle biting. That's your role here, along with being the Christian hater and self professed forum cuckold.

Lol no. You just get emo butthurt when someone criticizes your position. You've been offered constructive solutions. You just think they're shit and give yourself a thread trophy. It's already old going back and forth with you.

I'll just continue to make fun of your faux intellectual posts and you'll just have to get hurt and call me names. It's what you do here.

Lol "roles here".

[Spurtacular]

Lol no. You just get emo butthurt when someone criticizes your position. You've been offered constructive solutions. You just think they're shit and give yourself a thread trophy. It's already old going back and forth with you.

I'll just continue to make fun of your faux intellectual posts and you'll just have to get hurt and call me names. It's what you do here.

Lol "roles here".

One of your better Chump impressions.

Best you can do in lieu of not being able to think for yourself.

[DMC]

Lol no. You just get emo butthurt when someone criticizes your position. You've been offered constructive solutions. You just think they're shit and give yourself a thread trophy. It's already old going back and forth with you.

I'll just continue to make fun of your faux intellectual posts and you'll just have to get hurt and call me names. It's what you do here.

Lol "roles here".
Did you offer a constructive solution, yes or no?

That's what I thought, ankle biter.

Your role is set in stone. You're a role player, not even a high minute one. You're the Marco of the political forum - take cheap shots with a low connection percentage, never offer defense, don't really do anything otherwise.

[Spurtacular]

Did you offer a constructive solution, yes or no?

No. But he can echo the term constructive solution in a bid to sound smart.

[Blake]

Did you offer a constructive solution, yes or no?

That's what I thought, ankle biter.

Your role is set in stone. You're a role player, not even a high minute one. You're the Marco of the political forum - take cheap shots with a low connection percentage, never offer defense, don't really do anything otherwise.

I've offered my thoughts in the other umpteen threads. This is the same shit you're regurgitating. Nothing new.

Lol looking up "ankle biter" for a definition

Lolol "roles" on a discussion board.

[Blake]

No. But he can echo the term constructive solution in a bid to sound smart.

Biting my ankles, licking DMC boots

[Spurtacular]

Biting my ankles, licking DMC boots

Cucks don't stand tall. Nobody's biting your ankles. :lmao

[pgardn]

You can live in the world of what-if. I live in the world of what-is.

So don’t ever use the example you brought up as relevant to the future.

[Blake]

Nobody's biting your ankles. :lmao

Dude, please. :lol

[DMC]

I've offered my thoughts in the other umpteen threads. This is the same shit you're regurgitating. Nothing new.

Lol looking up "ankle biter" for a definition

Lolol "roles" on a discussion board.

So no, you didn't offer anything but ankle biting.

[DMC]

So don’t ever use the example you brought up as relevant to the future.

Oh ok, dipshit

[Blake]

So no, you didn't offer anything but ankle biting.

Let me know when you can make a real point without using sketchy anecdotes and horrible fallacies and maybe you'll get a real discussion without getting shit on by so many people here. Until then, you haven't offered anything in this thread either.

And lol clinging to your slang.com definition of "ankle biter"

[Spurtacular]

Dude, please. :lol

:cry But Imma big cuck on forum :cry

:lmao Fucking Blake

[boutons_deux]

...