Beto Engages with Gun Sellers/Buyers at AR Gun Show

[Gregory95]

Apples and oranges friend , still waiting for my question from 2 days ago to be answered. the fact you ALL are avoiding it is well , blaten proof of your illogical ideology.

So, you chose to disregard your grammar training for what? Convenience?

Why would somebody not similarly disregard their training regarding firearms safety?

 

[iluvatar5150]

Apples and oranges friend , still waiting for my question from 2 days ago to be answered. the fact you ALL are avoiding it is well , blaten proof of your illogical ideology.

Which question is that?

 

[Gregory95]

For clarification only, it must be answered yes or no.

If you had a opportunity to stop a horrific event and save many lives men, women and children . the only way to stop it is with a firearm , do you shoot and kill the evil sicko and save lives or , do you allow the evil to do as it wishes to the unsuspecting people.

Which question is that?

 

[hislegacy]

Robert Francis O'Rourke seems to speak out of both sides of his mouth, consider he is supporting gun confiscation with compensation - A.K.A. compulsory gun buy back.

 

[Gregory95]

See friend, here is where our ideologys split .


You want more upon more laws to make you "feel" safe.

I would like more freedom, why?

Because I believe I can protect those around me better then a person, possibly miles away who has to wait for a call, then drive to the situation.

I recognize based off the history of this nation , regulations do nothing but line the pockets of criminals and make honest civis life's more difficult with red tape.

Anouther example probation, booze was outlawed yet there was a demand.

Result CRIMINALS like Al Capone made a fortune and hurt/killed many in the processes.

Criminals make money off things people want but are told no.

Its just the reality.

You want to help, you will have to find a way to reach the minds of people. So that they don't want to go be violent.

That is the only way anything is going to change, because history tells us time and time again more laws don't do anything, except make honest peoples lives more difficult and criminals money.

Because once again criminals don't follow the law.

Why are people against registration of arms?

Because every time registration of arms is forced, confiscation soon follows and since the CRIMINALS won't register their arms. Now honest civis are unarmed while criminals are armed.

My question was to prove a point, and the fact none of you can anwser it only backs up my point.

Then by all means, let's remove all restrictions on pharmaceuticals.. we can't stop it, so we must do nothing at all.
What I don't get is a mentality that insists on all or nothing. If a regulation is not 100% effective - then do nothing.
That's your hypothetical question in a nut-shell btw, Do nothing or kill with a firearm. As-if there are no alternatives, ever.
I don't understand it.

 

[wing2000]

Thank you for exposing yourself .

Exposing myself to how federal law works?

 

[wing2000]

You do realize calling America a nation of laws is a joke right?

Please tell me did our founders follow the law?

The literal founders of this nation were technically guilty of treason and terrorism, (had they lost they would of been killed) since they won we think of them as heros. However as the saying gose "one mans patriot is anouther mans terrorist"

Have you lived in a country were there was no law enforcement?

 

[zephcom]

For clarification only, it must be answered yes or no.

If you had a opportunity to stop a horrific event and save many lives men, women and children . the only way to stop it is with a firearm , do you shoot and kill the evil sicko and save lives or , do you allow the evil to do as it wishes to the unsuspecting people.

I hate it when people ask a question and think they can tell someone they can only answer it with a yes or no.

Your hypothetical question has way too many holes in it for a simple yes or no. For instance, when is it ever going to be 'the only way' to stop something? Or why would I even have a firearm with me when it happened? Why assume I'm even capable of making a 'kill shot'? What are my chances of getting out of the mess when cops arrive if I'm the one standing there with a gun in hand?

When I was in debating class back in high school such questions were considered 'dilemma questions' because they had no right answer when one is forced to answer with a yes or no.

One has to be in a particular situation before one can make that decision. I recall a mall shooting a couple of years ago. There was a guy with a conceal permit carrying a hand gun in the mall at the time. He didn't fire because there were too many people running around to get a clear shot and he wasn't close enough for a hand gun to be accurate.

He didn't fire. Someone else in the same situation might have fired hoping that it would work.

Your question is defined in a manner in which people are required to either do as you think is right or leave themselves open to being a heartless coward. Most people recognize the nature of the question and just ignored it because it was asked only as a trick question.

 

[zephcom]

See friend, here is where our ideologys split .


You want more upon more laws to make you "feel" safe.

I would like more freedom, why?

Because I believe I can protect those around me better then a person, possibly miles away who has to wait for a call, then drive to the situation.

I recognize based off the history of this nation , regulations do nothing but line the pockets of criminals and make honest civis life's more difficult with red tape.

Anouther example probation, booze was outlawed yet there was a demand.

Result CRIMINALS like Al Capone made a fortune and hurt/killed many in the processes.

Criminals make money off things people want but are told no.

Its just the reality.

You want to help, you will have to find a way to reach the minds of people. So that they don't want to go be violent.

That is the only way anything is going to change, because history tells us time and time again more laws don't do anything, except make honest peoples lives more difficult and criminals money.

Because once again criminals don't follow the law.

Why are people against registration of arms?

Because every time registration of arms is forced, confiscation soon follows and since the CRIMINALS won't register their arms. Now honest civis are unarmed while criminals are armed.

My question was to prove a point, and the fact none of you can anwser it only backs up my point.

You do realize that Rambo is a fictional character who always wins because that is the way the script was written. That you 'believe' you are better able to protect those around you than the police is simply not true in nearly every situation.

I'm 72 years old. I have NEVER been in a situation in which me having a gun was the right solution. And I have desired to become a hero by killing someone.

 

[Gregory95]

You misunderstand, I do not believe I'm better at protecting then the police in a general sense .

Rather when immediate action must be taken , what is better a person there to do what they can to stop evil or a person possibly miles away.

Perfect example garlic festival police were johnny on the spot, yet how many died?

If someone THERE would of been armed and stopped him odds are, less people would of been shot.

But wasn't it a gun free zone?

You do realize that Rambo is a fictional character who always wins because that is the way the script was written. That you 'believe' you are better able to protect those around you than the police is simply not true in nearly every situation.

I'm 72 years old. I have NEVER been in a situation in which me having a gun was the right solution. And I have desired to become a hero by killing someone.

 

[Gregory95]

Not true , it was to prove a point.

That being , in the worst possible situation they are unable to make a decision.

Their ideology puts them in position that leaves them incapacitated.

I hate it when people ask a question and think they can tell someone they can only answer it with a yes or no.

Your hypothetical question has way too many holes in it for a simple yes or no. For instance, when is it ever going to be 'the only way' to stop something? Or why would I even have a firearm with me when it happened? Why assume I'm even capable of making a 'kill shot'? What are my chances of getting out of the mess when cops arrive if I'm the one standing there with a gun in hand?

When I was in debating class back in high school such questions were considered 'dilemma questions' because they had no right answer when one is forced to answer with a yes or no.

One has to be in a particular situation before one can make that decision. I recall a mall shooting a couple of years ago. There was a guy with a conceal permit carrying a hand gun in the mall at the time. He didn't fire because there were too many people running around to get a clear shot and he wasn't close enough for a hand gun to be accurate.

He didn't fire. Someone else in the same situation might have fired hoping that it would work.

Your question is defined in a manner in which people are required to either do as you think is right or leave themselves open to being a heartless coward. Most people recognize the nature of the question and just ignored it because it was asked only as a trick question.

 

[zephcom]

You misunderstand, I do not believe I'm better at protecting then the police in a general sense .

Rather when immediate action must be taken , what is better a person there to do what they can to stop evil or a person possibly miles away.

Perfect example garlic festival police were johnny on the spot, yet how many died?

If someone THERE would of been armed and stopped him odds are, less people would of been shot.

But wasn't it a gun free zone?

Actually the Garlic Festival is a terrible example for what a citizen with a gun could do to protect others. As it typical of these types of festivals, police were in the area and made contact with the gunman in less than a minute.

ANYONE ELSE holding a gun will also get shot by police. That is especially true if that person is FIRING their gun.

The reason so many died before police got to the guy is solely because he had a semi-automatic weapon with at 75 round drum magazine and was spraying bullets as fast as he could pull the trigger in that less than a minute before police got to him.

 

[Hank77]

You place blame on a object not the person committing the act...

Background checks are on people, not guns.

 

[zephcom]

Not true , it was to prove a point.

That being , in the worst possible situation they are unable to make a decision.

Their ideology puts them in position that leaves them incapacitated.

You did not prove a point. You merely tried to create a question with forced answers which you hoped would make people support your position.

Vigilante justice is just not going to be welcomed in America.

 

[Hank77]

Because we, as a society, don't wait until we have a measure guaranteed of 100% effectiveness to take action against obvious issues.

The USA has a problem with gun violence. It's not just the mass shootings in schools, malls and other public places. Those get the most attention but the violence is pervasive. In 2019 there have been 433 children, under the age of 11, killed or injured by guns in the USA.
There has been 1043 "unintentional shootings" or "accidental shootings" so far this year (here's the list with the police reports).
I'm not opposed to responsible gun ownership. I'm opposed to irresponsible gun ownership. So for me, the question becomes; What measures can be put in place to reduce irresponsible gun ownership? Well, as I see it, we have to put some measure in place that reflects responsibility. All the while we know it won't be 100% effective - it would give us recourse toward irresponsible owners prior to the felony/criminal act.

There was also 983 people killed or wounded in Defensive Use incidents,
The first one on the list was a home invasion. The homeowner, a woman, shot and wounded the perp. who was arrested.
Gun Violence Archive

 

[Hank77]

Do you believe the fed should squash state rights even more and demand federal law (say universal background checks passes) be held above states rights

The federal law demands background checks from all licensed gun dealers, why not all gun sales? That not such a big change and certainly isn't going to hurt law abiding gun owners and sellers.

 

[Darkhorse]

Vigilante justice is just not going to be welcomed in America.

A citizen who shoots a dangerous attacker (like a mass shooter) is NOT exercising "vigilante justice";
they are stopping a deadly threat - just as police would do in that situation.

The two situations are legally identical.

 

[Hank77]

I was at work so I did not have time, everyone but you seems to be able to read it thought friend.

No we just didn't say anything.

 

[Hank77]

For clarification only, it must be answered yes or no.

If you had a opportunity to stop a horrific event and save many lives men, women and children . the only way to stop it is with a firearm , do you shoot and kill the evil sicko and save lives or , do you allow the evil to do as it wishes to the unsuspecting people.

I would if I could do so without doing more harm than good.
@FenderTLS already answer you. They said that they would never shot a human being.

 

[Hank77]

Robert Francis O'Rourke seems to speak out of both sides of his mouth, consider he is supporting gun confiscation with compensation - A.K.A. compulsory gun buy back.

For what is called assault weapons, not all guns.