BengalBacker Posted June 14, 2015 Report Share Posted June 14, 2015 http://www.courierpostonline.com/story/news/crime/2015/06/04/woman-fatally-stabbed-berlin-twp/28461361/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|kennethmw| Posted June 14, 2015 Report Share Posted June 14, 2015 http://www.courierpostonline.com/story/news/crime/2015/06/04/woman-fatally-stabbed-berlin-twp/28461361/ What's your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-Dub Posted June 14, 2015 Report Share Posted June 14, 2015 What's your point? I'm guessing it's that if she had been armed she could've defended herself. Maybe, maybe not. I'm all for women carrying guns, particularly in a stalker/psycho ex situation, but IDK if I'd use a murder victim as an example. Crimes still happen to gun owners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalBacker Posted June 14, 2015 Report Share Posted June 14, 2015 What's your point? My point is, the laws in New Jersey, I assume created in the hopes to make good people safer, had the exact opposite effect in this case, and it's a good example of why more gun laws won't work. If a crazy man can't buy a gun (which I agree with depending on how it's determined he's crazy) he'll use a knife. If a defenseless woman can't buy a gun, the crazy man with the knife will kill her. New Jersey also has strict restrictions on things like pepper spray. NEW JERSEY: Legal with restrictions. Any non-felon 18 or over may possess for the purpose of self-defense "one pocket-sized device which contains and releases not more than three-quarters of an ounce of chemical substance not ordinarily capable of lethal use or of inflicting serious bodily injury, but rather is intended to produce temporary physical discomfort or disability through being vaporized or otherwise dispensed in the air". Section 2C:39-6i So you can only carry one, and it has to be one of the small ones with three quarters of an ounce or less. Better hope you're a good shot and there's only one attacker, and the wind isn't blowing, and you're physically capable of running away, and the attacker isn't able to attack you regardless of being sprayed, which is common. http://www.misdefenseproducts.com/Pepper-Spray-Laws-Restrictions-sp-6.html So, crazy/bad people will always find a way to do crazy/bad things. Making it harder for sane/good people to defend themselves against crazy/bad people is, well, crazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CincyInDC Posted June 15, 2015 Report Share Posted June 15, 2015 MOAR GUNS! http://www.rawstory.com/2015/06/iowa-open-carry-nut-gunned-down-mall-worker-who-filed-sexual-harassment-complaints-against-him/#.VX58ws4Nxjc.facebook Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-Dub Posted June 15, 2015 Report Share Posted June 15, 2015 My point is, the laws in New Jersey, I assume created in the hopes to make good people safer, had the exact opposite effect in this case, and it's a good example of why more gun laws won't work. If a crazy man can't buy a gun (which I agree with depending on how it's determined he's crazy) he'll use a knife. If a defenseless woman can't buy a gun, the crazy man with the knife will kill her. Again, gun owner here, but this doesn't hold water. I'd much, much rather be attacked by someone with a knife as opposed to an AR-15. Also, CT just released some stats claiming to prove a reduction in violent crime due to their tightened gun laws, but I haven't looked it over myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ColdWarrior Posted June 20, 2015 Report Share Posted June 20, 2015 News flash! The right to own firearms has been part of this country from Day 1 and is unlikely to change given the preference of the majority of citizens to be able to protect themselves. Unlike other rights which have been upended by non-legislative judicial (or now executive) activism, I don't see armed federal law enforcement kicking in my door to confiscate my pistols anytime soon. Nearly every mass shooting in the last 50 years was targeted at locations where guns were expressly prohibited. Mass shooters, in their public proclamations and Facebook rants publicly profess that they CHOSE to target places where they were guaranteed success by the lack of armed citizens or security. So, instead of ranting that our guns should be outlawed, which might make you feel morally superior, why not ground your feet in reality and proposed something realistic given the nature of our history and citizenry? How about we quit putting up signs that effectively say "if you're angry and insane, please be aware that nobody is armed on the premises at this public gathering place"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalBacker Posted June 20, 2015 Report Share Posted June 20, 2015 = Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted June 20, 2015 Report Share Posted June 20, 2015 How about less guns and less idiots that have guns? Or is that infringing on your rights too much? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted June 20, 2015 Report Share Posted June 20, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelWeston Posted June 22, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 22, 2015 So people get guns from Gary-Indiana, Toledo-Ohio, Baltimore-Md and Baton Rouge-LA. This ignores the existence of cars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelWeston Posted June 22, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 22, 2015 = Lets imagine this is true. Why isn't it true in other countries? Are you saying that the insatiable lust for guns in the Us has made guns so common place that we can't go back now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-Dub Posted June 23, 2015 Report Share Posted June 23, 2015 Are you saying that the insatiable lust for guns in the Us has made guns so common place that we can't go back now? I'm not exactly saying that, but like it or not there's some truth to it. "Insatiable lust" is some loaded as fuck language but yes, our entire country was settled and held onto at gunpoint. We can wring our hands about it now but that's how we got to here, good and bad, to the degree where we can chart American history by a handful of iconic guns. More to the point though, we have an enormous number of privately-owned firearms in the US. I doubt anyone else comes close. Personally I think it's a lot easier to get on a soapbox over guns than it is to address the root cause of violence - poverty, inequality, etc. I do think we could have smarter, better gun laws but I think it's safe to say anything even vaguely resembling disarmament is off the table. And, as I've said before, we clearly do not have the will to enforce the laws we have now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelWeston Posted June 23, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 23, 2015 The numbers are truly disgusting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Elflocko| Posted June 23, 2015 Report Share Posted June 23, 2015 I'm not exactly saying that, but like it or not there's some truth to it. "Insatiable lust" is some loaded as fuck language but yes, our entire country was settled and held onto at gunpoint. We can wring our hands about it now but that's how we got to here, good and bad, to the degree where we can chart American history by a handful of iconic guns. More to the point though, we have an enormous number of privately-owned firearms in the US. I doubt anyone else comes close. Personally I think it's a lot easier to get on a soapbox over guns than it is to address the root cause of violence - poverty, inequality, etc. I do think we could have smarter, better gun laws but I think it's safe to say anything even vaguely resembling disarmament is off the table. And, as I've said before, we clearly do not have the will to enforce the laws we have now. And there we go... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-Dub Posted June 23, 2015 Report Share Posted June 23, 2015 The numbers are truly disgusting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country What about your right to say so? Also disgusting? Sorry but there's no escaping the fact that you wouldn't be in the position to make that statement if it weren't for an armed civilian population. Sure it could be reigned in a bit but I wouldn't call it disgusting. If we're being honest, I'm more proud of it than I am disgusted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelWeston Posted June 23, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 23, 2015 What about your right to say so? Also disgusting? Sorry but there's no escaping the fact that you wouldn't be in the position to make that statement if it weren't for an armed civilian population. Sure it could be reigned in a bit but I wouldn't call it disgusting. If we're being honest, I'm more proud of it than I am disgusted. An armed civilian population 250 years ago. Times change. Maintaining that right has nothing to do with guns today. And last I checked it's not as if the English are struggling with issues related to issues surrounding the first amendment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-Dub Posted June 23, 2015 Report Share Posted June 23, 2015 An armed civilian population 250 years ago. Times change. Maintaining that right has nothing to do with guns today. And last I checked it's not as if the English are struggling with issues related to issues surrounding the first amendment. 1. Only if you live in one of the original 13. California? Not so much. 2. Tell that to the Kurds 3. The English don't have a First Amendment... Why don't we cut the BS though; what do you suggest? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelWeston Posted June 23, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 23, 2015 1. Only if you live in one of the original 13. California? Not so much. 2. Tell that to the Kurds 3. The English don't have a First Amendment... Why don't we cut the BS though; what do you suggest? Get rid of hand guns and automatic weapons. Allow rifles for hunting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelWeston Posted June 23, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 23, 2015 1. Only if you live in one of the original 13. California? Not so much. 2. Tell that to the Kurds 3. The English don't have a First Amendment... Why don't we cut the BS though; what do you suggest? California today. Yes. What are you talking about? No shit, but they don't struggle with speaking their mind and they don't have a billion guns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-Dub Posted June 23, 2015 Report Share Posted June 23, 2015 California today. Oh California! Well you've got about the strictest gun laws in the nation. How's that working out for ya? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|OneHeartBeat| Posted June 23, 2015 Report Share Posted June 23, 2015 I'm not exactly saying that, but like it or not there's some truth to it. "Insatiable lust" is some loaded as fuck language but yes, our entire country was settled and held onto at gunpoint. We can wring our hands about it now but that's how we got to here, good and bad, to the degree where we can chart American history by a handful of iconic guns. More to the point though, we have an enormous number of privately-owned firearms in the US. I doubt anyone else comes close. Personally I think it's a lot easier to get on a soapbox over guns than it is to address the root cause of violence - poverty, inequality, etc. I do think we could have smarter, better gun laws but I think it's safe to say anything even vaguely resembling disarmament is off the table. And, as I've said before, we clearly do not have the will to enforce the laws we have now. I wish I had the time to participate more in these debates in this forum. I agree with a lot of what you say. How would you address the root cause? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalBacker Posted June 24, 2015 Report Share Posted June 24, 2015 Get rid of hand guns and automatic weapons. Allow rifles for hunting. I don't hunt, and have no interest in hunting unless I have to in order to survive. The second amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with hunting. Automatic weapons are already for all intents and purposes illegal. They cost a fortune and you have to do all kinds of government paperwork and pay government fees. Virtually no one in this country owns automatic weapons. Handguns are critical to the natural right of self defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-Dub Posted June 24, 2015 Report Share Posted June 24, 2015 I wish I had the time to participate more in these debates in this forum. I agree with a lot of what you say. How would you address the root cause? With the disclaimer that I am just spitballing since you asked - education. We have shitty public schools. I also think another WPA-type jobs program to repair our 2nd-world infrastructure would be a good idea. That'd mean closing the corporate tax loopholes to fund it though and apparently paying taxes for things other than war is socialism, so... :shrug: Ultimately though I think it comes down to what kind of country we want to be, what we want our society to be.. Right now what we seem to want is to be left alone to consume, consume, consume & to have some vaguely-threatening other on which to take out our frustration. There are powerful ppl getting stupid rich off the status quo and a whole lot more who are just comfortable enough to not cause problems but still kept just angry enough to blame someone else & be easily manipulated. The idea that what we do is right because it's us, overwhelming apathy from living in a corrupt plutocracy.. A lot of things. I don't think there's any one thing that will fix it all but generally I feel like this is a ridiculously wealthy country with ridiculously shitty priorities & an unsustainable way of life that it's going to be incredibly difficult to convince people to let go of, even a little bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelWeston Posted June 24, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 24, 2015 I don't hunt, and have no interest in hunting unless I have to in order to survive. The second amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with hunting. Automatic weapons are already for all intents and purposes illegal. They cost a fortune and you have to do all kinds of government paperwork and pay government fees. Virtually no one in this country owns automatic weapons. Handguns are critical to the natural right of self defense. Yet that's not true in many many other countries. Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.