My "political" question.

m0nk

Active Member
I pretty much follow the same lines here that renogaw does; there isn't anything that could truly be done that would take guns out of the society from a legal perspective.
I also agree that there is no reason the average person should have assault weapons, get them out of the market completely.
That's about it; I don't think I'll ever personally own one (and I know there's the old adage that people who want nothing to do with guns have never shot one, but I was in the army) and I'm against anyone having them around my son. What someone else does with them is fine by me, but the first person to bring one around my son will need it.... to protect themselves from me.
 

rylan1

Active Member
Originally Posted by renogaw
wouldnt even worry about it because there's NOTHING they will be able to do about it.
I'd agree with you... if anything semi autos may go one day, but I doubt it.
 

renogaw

Active Member
person in springfield got jacked and killed by getting stabbed to death because he got sent on a delivery to a false address. sry, but $8 plus tips isn't enough for me to make deliveries to bad neighborhoods at 12am
Originally Posted by lovethesea
read this, it just happened in STL. Kinda along the lines of what you are talking about. The pizza guy delivered in a REALLY bad neighborhood, and ended up being held up.........
St. Louis Post Dispatch.
The pizza delivery driver who fatally shot a robber last week could have faced discipline over the incident had he not resigned, a Domino's spokesman said Wednesday.
Although the driver was being praised by bloggers with comments such as "Score one for the good guys," many corporations, like Domino's, prohibit armed employees.
Employees sign an agreement in which they agree not to carry a weapon, Domino's corporate spokesman Tim McIntyre said, a policy designed to protect both the public and employees.
"We're driving down … streets. We're going to people's homes. We're also a workplace," he said. Advertisement
McIntyre added that police had told the company, "There are too many cases in which a person's own weapon has been used against them."
The manager of the University City franchise, which is independently owned, declined to speak to a reporter, and the driver could not be reached for comment. Authorities have not identified him.
Domino's trains employees to minimize their risk, both before and during a robbery, McIntyre said. Drivers are told to carry a cell phone and avoid wearing jewelry or carrying valuables or more than a small amount of cash — typically $20. They're also taught to keep driving if they have doubts about an address and call to verify that the address is legitimate or return to the store, he said.
If robbers approach, drivers are told to "turn over the pizza and empty your pockets."
"The best way to save yourself from harm is to get the situation over as quickly and efficiently as possible," he said. "That typically will result in us needing to replace a pizza but not having to deal with a tragedy."
Domino's also offers security training to other pizza companies to minimize everyone's risk by limiting the potential payoff to would-be delivery robbers.
McIntyre said he didn't know what the former delivery driver told his manager when he resigned. "That's probably an experience he didn't want to confront anymore," McIntyre said.
The driver shot Brian Smith, 19, of the 600 block of Ferguson Avenue in Ferguson, on Dec. 27. His alleged accomplice, Rodney Reese, 18, fled with the pizzas, soda and the driver's wallet, police said, and was later charged with first-degree robbery, two counts of armed criminal action and second-degree murder because he was allegedly involved in a fatal crime.
McIntyre said any punishment would not have been "because he (the driver) defended himself. It would be because he violated a policy that he agreed to follow."
"We completely expect to be criticized," he added.
 

tangman99

Active Member
If you ban guns, there will be fewer murders. Sure there will still be murders, but the rate will drop. A criminal that wouldn't think twice about robbing you and shooting you with a gun may not feel as brave doing it with a knife for good reason. You can defend yourself much easier against a knife than a gun and criminals know that.
Having been a self defense trainer in law enforcement many year ago, under most circumstances I would not attempt to disarm someone with a gun if I felt reasonably sure that no harm was going to come to me or anyone around me. Even if I did feel I was in a very bad situation, the odds are against you. Give them what they want and move on. Now a knife, I would seriously consider taking only because I know how and have done so on a few occassions.
Now I am against banning hand guns. It only removes them from the hands of law abiding citizens.
 

salty blues

Active Member
SCSInet said:
The problem is with the violent nature of humans, not with the tools they use to exact that violence.
You hit the nail on the head with the above statement. It started when Cain killed his brother Abel and he didn't use a gun.
 

nyyankeees

Member
There are 3 things the USA will always have: guns, drugs and discrimination(whether race, sexual preference, religion, etc..) I'm not saying the USA is a bad country or anything but I just feel that those things will ALWAYS exist here.
 

dogstar

Active Member
Originally Posted by Tizzo
...The police? What about their guns?...
This cant happen. Not unless " the people " repeal the second amendment first.
This was my piont in the other thread, " the people " have a right to a regulated, armed, police force in their community.
Now I know many will selectivly use the amendment to say that it " clearly " says what they want it to say. I have been accused of doing the same thing. But I try to see what it says IMO, and not what I wish it says.
But if it was so clear to all, then why is there debate ongoing and even the Supreme Court has ruled allowing gun laws in the past and theres even an upcomeing gun case now ?
As far as could someone sue ?, depends on what law and what the law says that one is accused of violateing and if there is corruption or negligence, ect. on the part of the goverment or police or whomever is " responsible ". IMO, they would have to knowingly allowed someone to keep the gun used, illegally.
This may not be a good example, but if someone sells illegal drugs to a child and it kills the child, do you sue because the police did not prevent it. You can try, but a court would use whatever the new gun law " clearly " says in their interpretation of what happened or rule rather negligence allowed that person to get the gun.
Courts, IMO, too often rule in favor of the government nowdays and one most likely would lose a case like you proposed.
Now these are my opinions and some may now post to disagree and call me names.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Automatic weapons have been "banned" since 1934. Certain states do allow collectors to own them but it is way expensive to get the license.
Banning "assault weapons" does nothing to lower crime. Less than 1% of gun crimes are committed with them. More people are killed with knives and bludgeons than "Assualt weapons".
To answer the original question it is illegal to rob someone. If you are robbed the government will reimburse you for it?
 

salty blues

Active Member
Originally Posted by NYyankeees
There are 3 things the USA will always have: guns, drugs and discrimination(whether race, sexual preference, religion, etc..) I'm not saying the USA is a bad country or anything but I just feel that those things will ALWAYS exist here.
These things exist worldwide. Some places more than others.
 

notsonoob

Member
Originally Posted by salty blues
These things exist worldwide. Some places more than others.
I would like somebody to show me which country doesn't have discrimination as bad as the US. That is a world wide rampant.
As far as guns are concerned. Taking guns out of the hands of honest citizens does nothing but give power to the thugs and rapists.
 

rylan1

Active Member
Originally Posted by NOTSONOOB
I would like somebody to show me which country doesn't have discrimination as bad as the US. That is a world wide rampant.
As far as guns are concerned. Taking guns out of the hands of honest citizens does nothing but give power to the thugs and rapists.
Many places do because they don't have the history of slavery like we do and all the things in between. The USA is probably the worst.
 

rylan1

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
Automatic weapons have been "banned" since 1934. Certain states do allow collectors to own them but it is way expensive to get the license.
Banning "assault weapons" does nothing to lower crime. Less than 1% of gun crimes are committed with them. More people are killed with knives and bludgeons than "Assualt weapons".
To answer the original question it is illegal to rob someone. If you are robbed the government will reimburse you for it?


Yea, now... But think back to the days of Bonnie & Clyde, Al Capone..etc.
The drive-byes and bang robbers like the one in LA (which was like the movie HEAT) Assualt weapons are bad because we don't want criminals having more firepower than authorities. Could you imagine the caos if criminals had military weapons?
 

scsinet

Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
Could you imagine the caos if criminals had military weapons?
You make a very interesting point.
You are saying that chaos would ensue should those who had weapons for law abiding purposes be outgunned by those who had them for criminal purposes.....
So then imagine the chaos should criminals have handguns and law abiding people not...
 

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by NOTSONOOB
I would like somebody to show me which country doesn't have discrimination as bad as the US. That is a world wide rampant.
As far as guns are concerned. Taking guns out of the hands of honest citizens does nothing but give power to the thugs and rapists.
Well, then again, a state that is 95% white just voted for a black guy to be president... We have alot of discrimination...
 

dogstar

Active Member
Originally Posted by SCSInet
You make a very interesting point.
You are saying that chaos would ensue should those who had weapons for law abiding purposes be outgunned by those who had them for criminal purposes.....
So then imagine the chaos should criminals have handguns and law abiding people not...
I read what he said, not what I wish he said....." more firepower than authorities " he did not say law abiding purposes or law abiding people.
 

scsinet

Active Member
Originally Posted by Dogstar
I read what he said, not what I wish he said....." more firepower than authorities " he did not say law abiding purposes or law abiding people.
Perhaps I did stretch his statement. It was not my intention to do anything other than pose the question of why the criminals outgunning cops is a problem (as they would should they have assault weapons, for example), yet the criminals outgunning ordinary law abiding citizenry is not.
To say that there is a difference implies a complete trust in the honest and ethical behavior of law enforcement, and in the responsiveness and competance to protect my life, liberty, and property. Sorry, I have no such complete trust.
As Reagan would say... trust, verify.
 

dogstar

Active Member
Originally Posted by SCSInet
implies a complete trust in the honest and ethical behavior of law enforcement,
I respect you acknowledgeing my earlier point. Now, respecting the above statement, Perhaps many against legalizeing assault weapons or whatever, even any hand gun, or all guns if thats their positions, might have a problem " trusting even so called law abiding people haveing guns ". Many gun killings are accidents, children getting their parents guns, passion killings, ect. That can accure to/by law abideing people. Who decides who is what. Maybe they see that the criminal as per say, is not the problem, that the gun is.
I will add, with respect, explain why I or anyone should trust you with a gun.
 
Top