Discussion in 'The Red Room' started by oldfella1962, Jul 30, 2019.
Are you willing to bet your life on that person in aisle 7 is going to take out the shooter with their gun? Because that's what relying on an ordinary civilian with a gun really means.
Only if I'm the one on aisle 7.
Good luck with that.
The real solution is dealing with mental health in this country. The bulk of these mass killers all show the same mental health problems. I'll bet when they dig into this current one they will find the same things.
And the NRA is probably wrong that arming teachers is the way to go. I'd rather have armed trained people like the ones who guard nuclear power plants.
We could both argue until hell froze over about numbers.
Yeah, see while you may believe what you just wrote here your friends on the left have the ultimate goal of taking every gun in the country. So they have no credibility and by extension neither do you.
And look at your argument: If universal background checks stopped one mass shooting would you think that was worth it?
Here's my reply: Even if universal background checks stopped one mass shooting it would not stop all of them and because of that the left and you would continue to push for as you say, reasonable restrictions, on firearms until firearms were so difficult to deal with that they don't need to be banned as no one wants one and the hassles of owning one.
Though I haven't carried much since shortly after moving out of Memphis. I'm re-considering that here recently though.
But this is just a link to @Dinner's posts...?
I reckon the "Natives" will be surprised to learn that they didn't take the Europeans seriously.
Well, here's my take on that though. Lets pretend for a moment that I'm in Wal-Mart and a shooting breaks out. I'm going to be armed. But, my son is likely going to be with me and his safety is my first priority. My weapon will be used to cover our retreat towards, well, anywhere shooting isn't happening. I'm not going to seek out and engage anyone. I'm getting my son away from the threat as fast as humanly possible.
I get that. I do. I'd probably do the same thing, but this is all moving away from my original point. Somebody shot up a walmart...in Texas, and nobody returned fire. A walmart in Texas. In Texas.
And how do you propose we tackle the issue of mental health in this country? Would you be in favor of legislation requiring that insurance providers treat mental health the way they do other medical conditions? So, if your employer offered health insurance, it'd include a comprehensive package that covered seeing a therapist along with any drugs that they might prescribe?
There's no "probably" about it. They are wrong. Kids are assholes. When I was in high school, I can remember watching a teacher body slam a kid who was being a dick. Yeah, the teacher was wrong for that, but at the same time, the kid was being such a prick to the teacher that no reasonable human being could blame the teacher for snapping like he did.
But that's not at all the same kind of environment. Guards at nuke plants are dealing with adults. When you're dealing with kids, especially teenagers, they often like nothing better than fucking with people. And don't get me started on the folks I've known who've worked as armed security guards who washed out as both military people and cops. Not one of those fuckers should be able to carry a gun as part of their job.
But we're not arguing. I don't know what the numbers are. Do you?
Fuck those assholes. Nothing you or I say here will make any difference, so why not answer the question?
Yeah, I do. I don't care if it saved the lives of 3 people or a dozen.
You know where I get my username, right? Preston Tucker, guy who had this crazy idea about building a better car to save lives? He wasn't the first person (or the last) to do that. In the 1920s, Eddie Rickenbacker (famous WWI flying ace) started his own car company and he had this crazy idea that four-wheel brakes would be a good idea. The other car companies (and at the time there were probably close to a dozen in the US) decided that it'd be cheaper to run a whole bunch of ads saying that Eddie was crazy and that brakes on all four wheels was dangerous. Let's just think about that for a moment, okay? (Their campaign worked and Eddie's company went under, BTW.) I owned a 1965 Ford Ranchero, which, unlike cars made a few years later, had a single brake master cylinder, rather than a dual brake master cylinder. Ever been in a car with no brakes? I have. The drum cylinder in one of the rear brakes of that Ranchero gave out on me. This meant that all the brake fluid drained out of the system. So, when I tried to stop (in rush hour traffic, I want to point out), the pedal went straight to the floor.
I got lucky. Really fucking lucky. I discovered that I had no brakes as I was in the turning lane at an intersection. I had no choice but to continue through the intersection. Meanwhile, there was a woman in a car, on the opposite side of the intersection, in the turning lane there. I was headed straight for her. My car had no seatbelts and a metal dash. All I could do, because the traffic was so heavy in my direction that I couldn't think about getting over, was to wave frantically at her and hope that she understood I couldn't stop. We missed each other by inches. Literally, inches. I finally got the car over to the side of the road and stopped it by throwing it into park and using the ol' Fred Flintstone method.
I bring all of this up because when the idea of things like seatbelts and dual master brake cylinders were first proposed, the carmakers all swore up and down that to do such things would bankrupt them. That didn't happen.
What's my point? Saying that universal background checks will lead to no one being able to easily own a gun has just as much basis in reality as the car makers claiming that things like dual master brake cylinders and seatbelts would bankrupt them. And yeah, I know, that lots of people think that they need to own guns because they want to defend themselves against a tyrannical government. The problem with that, however, is that a government willing to kill its own people is going to be more than willing to use every weapon at its disposal, so I don't know what good an AR-15 is going to be against a government that has access to drones, nuclear weapons, and the like. Plus, non-violent protests have had better success rates at getting governments to capitulate than armed revolutions have.
Presently, there are more guns in America than there are people. And the majority of those guns are owned by a small fraction of the populace. It's an absurd number, too. Three percent of the population own fifty percent of the guns. Even in countries that are having a civil war, they don't have numbers like that. What kind of freedoms are we gaining for such numbers of weapons when compared to other nations? Are we dramatically freer than say the UK? Sweden? Ireland? Or any other members of the EU? I don't know. If we've got some kind of huge advantage over the UK and the EU, I'd love to know about it. Because, from where I'm sitting, they seem to be better off than us. After all, if a nutter decides to shoot up a place in one of those countries, they don't have to start a GoFundMe to pay for their medical bills or funeral expenses. Meanwhile, despite my gold-plated (thanks to my union) health insurance plan, if I get shot because of some assgasket with anger issues, I'm still going to have to set up a GoFundMe to cover my medical bills. So what freedoms do I have that those in the EU don't have, which make it all worth it? Because I don't know.
Which should fucking tell you something, but you seem to be ignoring what I've been saying.
I'm with you. I'm actually a little surprised.
Sort of takes the air out of that good guy with a gun argument.....
Well, it IS Texas, so might be like finding virgins in Newcastle.
Why this idea that people in Texas are more likely to carry firearms? Texas is not that different from rest of the U.S.
okay maybe on Black Friday
A composite image of your average adult male Texican:
Only 3.7 percent of the population have carry permits.
There is a saying about Texas:
Texas is a southern state that pretends to be a western one.
because their weapons were of no use to them at that exact moment. The gunman wasn't in sight - their focus was saving the kids and they had the means and ability to do that. Trying to stalk the bad guy would have been pointless and counter productive.
They were packing cookies. Lose the fucking avatar. It's pathetic.
You've bought into the Texas marketing departments line that Texas is special.
It's not. It's a state like any other. Particularly its big cities. Which tend to lean blue and are not hardcore Texan as everyone likes to pretend they are.
still obsessing over that avatar? Seek professional help.
What's the issue with the avatar?
Steve is anti-gun and he thinks MAOHS is giving people ideas of being a potential mass shooter because MAOHS is in a shower holding a rifle while eating cookies.
MAOHS picture has been turned into a meme.
So it's all his fault that there are mass shooters in America.
For shame MAOHS.
(we need a smiley with a cookie and a gun)
That was back when I didn't hold to the idea of brevity being the soul of wit. I should have simply said, "So there I was..."
In other news, this wasn't me.
And a T-shirt and a jack 0 lantern.
That's probably why Steve is so upset.
He's jealous of your success in life. Stop being a dingus Steve!
Separate names with a comma.