Reply
Highlighted
Honored Contributor
Posts: 8,036
Registered: ‎03-09-2010

It's not a different world now; it HAS BEEN a different and changing world for almost 15 years.  Anyone who lives in a city, near a big city, rides the subway, goes to concerts, travel at all, knows that people are vigilant, knows the phrase "see it say it", knows to look for exits, to be alert.  Nothing new about it.

Highlighted
Respected Contributor
Posts: 4,426
Registered: ‎03-10-2010

Several times a week I commute by train into NY's Penn Station to go to work in the Financial district. I routinely pass by armed military and police. I don't need civilians as well.

 

I took this photo last fall after the Paris attack. Mainly because of how silly the characters look with armed police. But it is what it is. 13450247_10208549580168479_6592636289778401789_n.jpg This is what is typical in this area. 

Highlighted
Honored Contributor
Posts: 12,522
Registered: ‎06-09-2014

@Maudelynn wrote:

@Laura14 wrote:

@Maudelynn wrote:

The contradictions abound!  We need to demand stepped-up security everywhere we go!  Use any means we can, including preventing people from entering venues while armed- metal detectors and wanding will catch those armed people.

 

But we need everyone to be armed because perhaps someone, who is a good shot, can stop a would-be perp.

 

Can't have it both ways.  It's a complete contradiction.


I think it is an either/or.  If you don't have detectors or security in place, I think it's something to think about to allow licensed holders to carry.   


Really?  The guy who killed 50 people in Orlando was licensed.  Is that who you think should carry in public places?


I already addressed that earlier.  And the club had security that wasn't in place when he entered so it was a failure all around. 

 

Most shooters are licensed.  And if they have a break with reality, I say the other licensed carriers should possibly have the right in certain venues to defend themselves.   Not a concrete belief but something that could be explored as we try and stop these types of events.  

 

I'm sure a licensed carrier looking to do something like this would pass by establishments or events where they might encounter some lethal resistance in favor of places where they know people are completely defenseless.  They may be mentally ill but they're smart too.      

Highlighted
Honored Contributor
Posts: 12,522
Registered: ‎06-09-2014

@ChynnaBlue wrote:

@Laura14 wrote:

@Maudelynn wrote:

The contradictions abound!  We need to demand stepped-up security everywhere we go!  Use any means we can, including preventing people from entering venues while armed- metal detectors and wanding will catch those armed people.

 

But we need everyone to be armed because perhaps someone, who is a good shot, can stop a would-be perp.

 

Can't have it both ways.  It's a complete contradiction.


I think it is an either/or.  If you don't have detectors or security in place, I think it's something to think about to allow licensed holders to carry.   


The Orlando shooter carried legal guns on him and had both a security license and a conceal carry license. So no, this solves nothing.


My point was the people inside had no weapons because of security that was not up and running when the shooter entered so how do we ever know?  Had the security been in place, he wouldn't have gotten in presumably.  Or, if the people inside had access to lethal force, more people may have survived.    

Highlighted
Respected Contributor
Posts: 4,426
Registered: ‎03-10-2010

@Laura14 wrote:

@ChynnaBlue wrote:

@Laura14 wrote:

@Maudelynn wrote:

The contradictions abound!  We need to demand stepped-up security everywhere we go!  Use any means we can, including preventing people from entering venues while armed- metal detectors and wanding will catch those armed people.

 

But we need everyone to be armed because perhaps someone, who is a good shot, can stop a would-be perp.

 

Can't have it both ways.  It's a complete contradiction.


I think it is an either/or.  If you don't have detectors or security in place, I think it's something to think about to allow licensed holders to carry.   


The Orlando shooter carried legal guns on him and had both a security license and a conceal carry license. So no, this solves nothing.


My point was the people inside had no weapons because of security that was not up and running when the shooter entered so how do we ever know?  Had the security been in place, he wouldn't have gotten in presumably.  Or, if the people inside had access to lethal force, more people may have survived.    


You are assuming by allowing civilians to carry guns that they are all good shooters and that no friendly fire will occur?

Highlighted
Honored Contributor
Posts: 18,752
Registered: ‎03-09-2010

@caravaggio wrote:

@mominohio wrote:

@Laura14 wrote:

@Maudelynn wrote:

@Melania wrote:

Sighing and moaning about the past does not help us NOW or those that supposedly saw the future and are glad they are dead. I would rather have them here instead of dead to save them from hurt. They would handle it like  we do.

I think most us realize that things have changed for a long time now. 

Many of you choose to overlook that the that person did nothing at the time that was arrestable. Just like one of you toting your weapons...unless you do something that is a crime you are free.

 

Do you want a police state? You want your rights preserved but then *itch and moan about nothing being done to protect us?? It's laughable at the hypocrisy and ultimate selfishness.


What really boggles my mind is the notion that we have to demand stepped up security when attending large gatherings, stepped up security which disallows guns from being carried into an event- in essence, we should be guaranteed a "gun-free zone" in gathering places.

However, you're treading on rights when you demand that the same "gun-free" zone be applicable to the public at large.

 

I don't understand that rationale.


I don't understand it for a different reason.  Since most gun owners are incredibly responsible, I could not help but think how things could have been different if people had been allowed to carry inside.  I get guns and alcohol are not a great mix but when the one and only can't get a clear shot, it would have been nice if there were a few others carrying to at least give everyone another fighting chance.   


 

 

@Laura14

 

This makes too much sense for some posters here to grasp.

 

Each of these shootings has one thing in common, that there were no armed citizens to fight back, most often because of the regulations or laws for the location or venue, and sometimes because they occur in places where people don't normally think having a concealed carry would be needed.

 

We now see differently, that anywhere is now a target, and yet we continue to refuse to try the other side. Allow responsible trained people to have weapons that could conceivably stop or reduce the level of this kind of violence. Because if it did, they'd be proven wrong about their anti gun stance, and that is more important to them than saving lives.


Really? It didn't stop the 4 killed and many others injured in Tel Aviv. We don't need people packing guns. We need stricter laws and a ban on assault rifles.

 

Maybe that is too hard to grasp.


********************************

 

Yes, agree @caravaggio

 

Most gun owners are responsible until the day they aren't, and then they make the news, like the pro-gun blogger shot by her four year old son who found one of mommy's guns in the back seat with him... loaded.

Highlighted
Regular Contributor
Posts: 166
Registered: ‎08-27-2013

I agree with you we cannot dimiss the holocaust of the Native Americans anymore than we can forget any other acts of genocode or any other atrocoties committed against so many ohers. The history of humankind is so wrought with all too much cruelty and evil.  But there has been those who risked and refused to let evil win such as abolitionists,  those in Europe who hid people from the Nazis to name few.  I am sick and disgusted but I do want to believe that goodness will win.  Am I naive?  Maybe, but we can never stop being viligant.  We never really could we must remember always those who have pershed at the hands of evil but also those who fought to stop it.

Highlighted
Valued Contributor
Posts: 773
Registered: ‎05-08-2015

@Melania wrote:

@mstyrion 1 wrote:

@ChynnaBlue wrote:

No, it's the same world as it was before this event and the same world it was after the Sandy Hook event, after the Aurora shooting, after the Riverside shootings, after Gabby Giffords was gunned down in Arizona, after Columbine, after the Cleveland Elementary shootings, and after the UT Tower shootings. It will be the same world after the next mass shooting, too.

 

Because when you change nothing, nothing changes.

 


________________________________________________________________

If I could give you one hundred hearts for this post I would.

Very well said!


ITA and it needs to be repeated for the purposely uninformed.


Bears repeating.

You have sacrificed nothing and no one.
Highlighted
Respected Contributor
Posts: 4,426
Registered: ‎03-10-2010

I don't know how much it was reported in the US but one of the arresting officers of the Tel Aviv massacre was shot by friendly fire. Obviously an accident but still can you imagine civilians. Not to mention the cost of insuring places that would allow people to carry weapons.

Highlighted
Respected Contributor
Posts: 3,921
Registered: ‎06-12-2013

@Laura14 wrote:

@ChynnaBlue wrote:

@Laura14 wrote:

@Maudelynn wrote:

The contradictions abound!  We need to demand stepped-up security everywhere we go!  Use any means we can, including preventing people from entering venues while armed- metal detectors and wanding will catch those armed people.

 

But we need everyone to be armed because perhaps someone, who is a good shot, can stop a would-be perp.

 

Can't have it both ways.  It's a complete contradiction.


I think it is an either/or.  If you don't have detectors or security in place, I think it's something to think about to allow licensed holders to carry.   


The Orlando shooter carried legal guns on him and had both a security license and a conceal carry license. So no, this solves nothing.


My point was the people inside had no weapons because of security that was not up and running when the shooter entered so how do we ever know?  Had the security been in place, he wouldn't have gotten in presumably.  Or, if the people inside had access to lethal force, more people may have survived.    


So the kindergartners of SH who were slaughtered should have been packing and if they were they could have gotten off a few good shots??? or the Colorado moviegoers in the pitch dark???

 

Pfffftttt....such carp.