"But Chicago, Chicago, Chicago!"

[Pavlov]

non sequitur

as usual

your whole argument is that crime is down because gun ownership is up. On a household basis, it's just not true.

[DMC]

I've forever been against the minimum age 18 for military service.

Ok as long as you are against it.

Science doesn't care about our arbitrary determination of an "adult." That said, I do agree that children who commit heinous acts should be removed from society, arbitrary adult or not. A 12 year old killing his parents because they took away his Xbox probably won't grow up to be a productive adult, so he probably should be committed lifetime to an ins ution.

But the law does care about science. We are talking about 18 year olds being tried as adults. We aren't talking about 12 year olds. Don't move the goalposts.

[DMC]

your whole argument is that crime is down because gun ownership is up. On a household basis, it's just not true.

More guns than ever = gun ownership is up, someone has to own them.

However I was throwing out another cause vs correlation that could just as easily be credited with the statistical differences between years. Whatever the case, so what if crime fell? What does it have to do with mass shootings? California isn't immune to them either.

[Pavlov]

More guns than ever = gun ownership is up, someone has to own them..

So your average criminal is afraid a dude is carrying several guns opposed to one?

so what if crime fell?

you REALLY don't give a about any of this

[midnightpulp]

You don't have enough data on mass shootings to build anything close to what Chicago has though. What's the number of shootings in Chicago this year compared to the number of people killed in mass shootings elsewhere in the US?

What is being put into practice is being armed as an individual. Like I said, the solution that prevents anyone from having to make a hard choice that might be seen as insensitive is to worry about yourself, protect yourself. How many mass shootings happen in police stations or gun shows?

Media calls the Garlic festival shooting a mass shooting, 3 people killed. You get 4 killed in Chicago and it's ho hum, not listed. One killed in a Walmart in Mississippi, and that's listed as a mass shooting but 4 more killed in a home in Chicago and the home set ablaze... nothing. Nope, not a mass killing that needs to be mentioned.

You have some fantasy that the "hero" in question is going to quick draw and take down the shooter within seconds (and most of them are wearing body armor now). The military vet who lead many people to their safety was armed and stated that in a gun fight, the first thing you do is find cover (obviously). If he engaged, someone with a AR-15 and 100 round drum is pinning him down. He was the "good guy with the gun," but acted in a way that saved considerable more lives if he tried to be Rambo. Mass shooters also have the element of surprise. If one walks into a crowded bar, he's killing a few before anyone draws. Your solution only limits casualties. I want solutions that limit events.

Everyone is armed at gun shows and police stations. It is unreasonable to expect everyone to be armed at all times throughout their daily lives, especially considering the population of children, the elderly, who are too young, physically unable to use firearms. And no, I don't want to live in the in' Wild West so a segment of our population can buy their toys as hassle free as humanly possible. And even in the Wild West, many cities were "gun free zones." Even they weren't stupid enough to let everyone walk around carrying.

[Pavlov]

DMC is one step away from victim blaming. If he actually keeps talking about this....

[midnightpulp]

Ok as long as you are against it.


But the law does care about science. We are talking about 18 year olds being tried as adults. We aren't talking about 12 year olds. Don't move the goalposts.

How does the law care about science here? Science shows 18 is still a developmental period and not a fully formed "adult." My example by bringing up the 12 year old is that I think someone ed up enough to murder at any age will be a problematic adult. Violence in childhood (torturing animals, etc) is a pretty good predicator of violence in adulthood.

[DMC]

You have some fantasy that the "hero" in question is going to quick draw and take down the shooter within seconds (and most of them are wearing body armor now). The military vet who lead many people to their safety was armed and stated that in a gun fight, the first thing you do is find cover (obviously). If he engaged, someone with a AR-15 and 100 round drum is pinning him down. He was the "good guy with the gun," but acted in a way that saved considerable more lives if he tried to be Rambo. Mass shooters also have the element of surprise. If one walks into a crowded bar, he's killing a few before anyone draws. Your solution only limits casualties. I want solutions that limit events.

Everyone is armed at gun shows and police stations. It is unreasonable to expect everyone to be armed at all times throughout their daily lives, especially considering the population of children, the elderly, who are too young, physically unable to use firearms. And no, I don't want to live in the in' Wild West so a segment of our population can buy their toys as hassle free as humanly possible. And even in the Wild West, many cities were "gun free zones." Even they weren't stupid enough to let everyone walk around carrying.

Defending yourself isn't being ing Rambo. Don't be a pussy. You cower and get shot in the head like all those people or you fight back. I would fight back. I might die. I might die either way. I am a military vet, I don't give a what he says. The cop in Florida who did nothing was criticized for not doing anything, but he wasn't in harms way yet somehow he's supposed to walk in and engage the guy with the rifle. However someone in the thick of it needs to cower and die because well, don't want to risk getting killed. You won't limit events because you won't know the ones you've prevented. Limiting casualties is the only solution and even then, I am the primary casualty I am trying to prevent.

Don't bifurcate the situation to never armed vs always armed. If you want to protect yourself and you are concerned about this kind of thing, you'll do what's required. Otherwise you'll hope you don't become one of the unlucky ones and experience an event, and hope someone does something about it.

The reason police stations and gun shows aren't attacked is because the shooter wants max casualties with minimum personal risk. Every time another gun free zone is created where people are packed in like sardines, it's feeding time for the crazies. Churches, schools, theaters, bars, stores (not all stores are gun free zones, but the odds are most people in one aren't carrying and I've not seen any armed protection for anything but the money drop).

It's odd, we put 2 cops at banks but none where our most precious resources are. It makes you wonder if human life is really that important. That's why I said protect yourself first. If you don't want to, that's your choice. You won't talk me into being a victim.

[DMC]

How does the law care about science here? Science shows 18 is still a developmental period and not a fully formed "adult." My example by bringing up the 12 year old is that I think someone ed up enough to murder at any age will be a problematic adult. Violence in childhood (torturing animals, etc) is a pretty good predicator of violence in adulthood.

Do you want to raise the voting age to 21 as well? Perhaps even 25?

I mean any crime, even possession of a controlled substance. You'll be tried as an adult at 18. You can vote at 18. You are emancipated at 18.

Like it or not, 18 is the legal age of adulthood. Still, they can drag the gun age to 21. I don't have a problem with it.

[Pavlov]

And there it is.

[DMC]

And there it is.

You found your colostomy bag?

[Pavlov]

You found your colostomy bag?

Is that an edgy handicap joke, DMC? Is this where you want to go now, tough guy?

[DMC]

Is that an edgy handicap joke, DMC? Is this where you want to go now, tough guy?

I should have said " sack".

Think of Prince tune... Pop life.

Hey there Pavlov..

What you puttin in your bag
Is that where all your dukey goes
The river of urine flow
Down your catheter
It gets hot
But there won't be no nurses
when the sack blows

[Pavlov]

I should have said " sack".

Think of Prince tune... Pop life.

Hey there Pavlov..

What you puttin in your bag
Is that where all your dukey goes
The river of urine flow
Down your catheter
It gets hot
But there won't be no nurses
when the sack blows

So edgy handicap jokes is where you want to go with this discussion?

Seems like the opposite of the brave warrior genius you want to be to us tbh.

[midnightpulp]

Defending yourself isn't being ing Rambo. Don't be a pussy. You cower and get shot in the head like all those people or you fight back. I would fight back. I might die. I might die either way. I am a military vet, I don't give a what he says. The cop in Florida who did nothing was criticized for not doing anything, but he wasn't in harms way yet somehow he's supposed to walk in and engage the guy with the rifle. However someone in the thick of it needs to cower and die because well, don't want to risk getting killed. You won't limit events because you won't know the ones you've prevented. Limiting casualties is the only solution and even then, I am the primary casualty I am trying to prevent.

Don't bifurcate the situation to never armed vs always armed. If you want to protect yourself and you are concerned about this kind of thing, you'll do what's required. Otherwise you'll hope you don't become one of the unlucky ones and experience an event, and hope someone does something about it.

The reason police stations and gun shows aren't attacked is because the shooter wants max casualties with minimum personal risk. Every time another gun free zone is created where people are packed in like sardines, it's feeding time for the crazies. Churches, schools, theaters, bars, stores (not all stores are gun free zones, but the odds are most people in one aren't carrying and I've not seen any armed protection for anything but the money drop).

It's odd, we put 2 cops at banks but none where our most precious resources are. It makes you wonder if human life is really that important. That's why I said protect yourself first. If you don't want to, that's your choice. You won't talk me into being a victim.

The cop in Florida was unfairly criticized, and is a good cautionary tale about how that little thing called human nature (as it relates to flight or flight) gets in the way of action. The vet in El Paso was a combat vet and relied on his training, which is to get to cover.

I am concerned about it, and trying to do what's required. I just don't see it as some example of "freedom" that I should be required to endure a lifestyle change so others can play with their toys. I can say the same thing that if gun ownership was so important to the other side, going through a more comprehensive licensing test and background check shouldn't be an issue for them. And I guess this is where the impasse is. Still, I think my position is more flexible since I don't want to ban guns, AR-15s, etc, and just make their acquisition stricter. They still get their guns at the end of the day, while your logic demands I buy a gun if I want a safety increase. I'd rather the safety increase come through limiting the ways a shooter can buy a firearm.

[DMC]

The cop in Florida was unfairly criticized, and is a good cautionary tale about how that little thing called human nature (as it relates to flight or flight) gets in the way of action. The vet in El Paso was a combat vet and relied on his training, which is to get to cover.

I am concerned about it, and trying to do what's required. I just don't see it as some example of "freedom" that I should be required to endure a lifestyle change so others can play with their toys. I can say the same thing that if gun ownership was so important to the other side, going through a more comprehensive licensing test and background check shouldn't be an issue for them. And I guess this is where the impasse is. Still, I think my position is more flexible since I don't want to ban guns, AR-15s, etc, and just make their acquisition stricter. They still get their guns at the end of the day, while your logic demands I buy a gun if I want a safety increase. I'd rather the safety increase come through limiting the ways a shooter can buy a firearm.

This kind of strawman is why the debates stall. If you think the shooter was playing with his toys, how serious are you taking it? It won't be an issue until you realize you're in one of these suddenly, then it will be too late to choose. You'd be hard pressed to go through a more comprehensive background check and training than I've been through to have a CHL. We aren't talking about owning a gun. We are talking about having a gun when you need it. You can own a hundred guns, they are useless if you don't have one when you need it. These shooters, by and large, don't have criminal backgrounds.

Since you cannot pinpoint why these events happen, you cannot measure increased or decreased safety. In fact, in many of these discussions, safety is a feeling instead of a condition. In reality we are only as safe as we make ourselves, individually. You could be shot in the head when you walk out of your home, or someone could come in and do it while you are sitting there. Feeling safe because of some legislation seems like a popular placebo. Being safe because you have the ability to defend yourself, not so much. The hyperbole you use to describe a person who has the ability to defend themselves illustrates you haven't spent any time in the military and probably depend on local LEO to save your life and hope the scenario plays out in your favor. There are several dead today who may have had similar thoughts.

You cannot create that legislation. You cannot change or even stem the flow of guns to people who shouldn't have guns. You can debate it. When it comes to personal security, that's still a personal choice.

If you were in that Walmart when that guy came in shooting, would you rather have a gun or not have a gun? If you had a gun, would you return fire or hide and hope you're not discovered?

[DMC]

So edgy handicap jokes is where you want to go with this discussion?

Seems like the opposite of the brave warrior genius you want to be to us tbh.

Today's male

Defending your own life is bravado now.

[Pavlov]

Today's male

Defending your own life is bravado now.

posting edgy handicap jokes is defending your life?

Today's male indeed

[DMC]

posting edgy handicap jokes is defending your life?

Today's male indeed

You think that's edgy?

today's Chumplov

[Pavlov]

You think that's edgy?

today's Chumplov

DMC promising he can be edgier.

today's try hard tough guy

[Chris]

[Pavlov]

Qhris and his celebrity worship

[DMC]

DMC promising he can be edgier.

today's try hard tough guy

Chumpy claiming to know about hard, tough guys. Do tell.

[Pavlov]

Chumpy claiming to know about hard, tough guys. Do tell.

I'm calling you a try hard tough guy.

Which means I don't think you're really a tough guy. The fact I had to explain that to you proves you aren't as smart as you want people to think you are.


Jesus.

[koriwhat]

wow something i totally agree with and i'm no bible thumper either.