And what if the person needs that gun for self protection, are you are saying someone's life is less important than a waiting period?
If you're going to be killed in 7 days without fail you need to move. Really, I'm not trying to be flippant here but where do you people live any way that you MUST have a gun to defend your life in less than 7 days. If someone is after you that hard you need to call a cop.
'No one helped her': NJ woman murdered by ex while awaiting gun permit Carol Bowne knew her best shot at defending herself from a violent ex was a gun, and not a piece of paper. And it was paperwork that left her unprotected when Michael Eitel showed up at her New Jersey home last week and stabbed her to death, say Second Amendment advocates, who charge local police routinely sit on firearms applications they are supposed to rule on within 30 days. Bowne, 39, had a restraining order against Eitel when he killed her in her driveway last Wednesday, but she was still waiting for Berlin Township Police Chief Leonard Check to approve the gun permit she had applied for on April 21. Tragically, she had gone to the township police department just two days before her death to check on the status of her languishing application. In another indication of her fear of Eitel, Bowne had recently installed surveillance cameras around her home, and the equipment recorded the 45-year-old ex-con attacking her as she arrived home and got out of her car. “Carol would have qualified for a permit since she was attacked; only now it’s too late.” — Evan Nappen, New Jersey-based attorney and gun rights advocate New Jersey's gun laws are among the nation's strictest, but law-abiding citizens are eligible to purchase and possess handguns after filling out forms available at their local police stations, submitting to a background check on any possible criminal history or mental health issues, giving fingerprints and paying a fee. Once those steps are taken, local police conduct a 14-point investigation and the chief is supposed to approve or deny for cause within 30 days. Check did not return requests for comment, but gun rights advocates say it is not unusual for Garden State police chiefs to take several months to approve handgun permits for qualified applicants. https://www.foxnews.com/us/no-one-helped-her-nj-woman-murdered-by-ex-while-awaiting-gun-permit
A lot of people cannot afford to move nor any of the useless ideas the GCA's come up with Yea right, in a lot of urban areas that doesn't always work out well for young women.. $2.5M Deal Proposed for Milwaukee Woman Raped by Cop When officers responded to Lemons’ call in 2010, they did not address her complaints of bricks being thrown through her window, the complaint states. Instead, they arrested her brother, and while he and Cates’ partner was in the squad car, Cates cornered Lemons in her bathroom. Cates was armed when he repeatedly ordered Lemons to perform oral sex on him. “She was afraid he would kill her if she did not comply with his demand and that, as a police officer any story he invented to cover such use of force would be believed,” the complaint states. https://www.courthousenews.com/2-5m-deal-proposed-for-milwaukee-woman-raped-by-cop/
Psst...you're on a public forum. If you don't like it when other people respond to you then I'd suggest you're in the wrong line for a sideline hobby. Regardless, my point still stands.
How many murders were stopped by a waiting period? Why should anyone who already has a gun have to wait to get another one?
It’s all good. He knows I answered his posts. And although he did not directly ask for my opinion after I did, I gave it to him anyway. He is just ignoring my reply. I believe it was Winston Churchill who said it best: “I do not at all resent criticism, even when, for the sake of emphasis, it for a time parts company with reality.” Thomas Paine had a quote that likens what have been doing with him to attempting to administer medicine to the dead.
Oh, I have no problem with you joining in. I just cannot understand why you are here to make personal insults rather than responding to the issue. So, what you call responding is actually only an off-topic rant and that is not in keeping with the spirit of a public forum. I see that the two of you have “dodging the topic” in common but I suggest that you find another tree. I have a cat that I scared up this one and I don't think there is room for another. Perhaps if you wait until he comes down to face the music then you can climb up it yourself. Or …. you can convince him to respond to my suggestions on the reasons for gun violence in the U.S. He sent in the band to herald his rebuff to mine but he got scared and ended up the tree instead. Maybe you have some thoughts on the subject? You know, that's sort of the reason we are all here on this thread.
He side-stepped. And once again here you are making accusations without the "public forum" courtesy of responding to the topic. In short, you are guilty of the exact thing you accuse me of. The reasons for gun violence in the U.S. Ever hear of that topic? Here's a thought: Why don't you read what I said on the subject then take his pseudo-response and evaluate them for yourself and make your own judgement. Good idea? That way you will contribute to the thread and you won't have to rely on personal insults.
Actually neither of us are on the topic of the thread. The threads topic is about compromise on gun control. Not "the reason for gun violence in the US". Two different topics. But I wasn't talking about that. I'm talking about you evading his response. Just because you think he evaded what you were talking about (he didn't he addressed it directly) doesn't mean he actually did. He just has a different perspective from you. Try reading his posts again. There are multiple ways to answer what you have said. Imo he answered you just fine.
Since you are not part of the dialogue you probably shouldn't stick your nose in between the two participants unless you offer something constructive. Now, for the third time ….. and this time it is a direct statement ….. you have contributed NOTHING to the thread, the subject, or the dialogue. I've invited you to contribute but you are hell-bent on trolling & flamming and that's all you've got. Your nose got pinched and you have yourself to blame. If there's anything you'd like to say that is relevant to the subject you can feel free to submit it. But no, I don't think you do now and I didn't think so the last time I extended an invitation. either.
So this: "He just has a different perspective from you. Try reading his posts again. There are multiple ways to answer what you have said. Imo he answered you just fine." isn't constructive? Hmm...perhaps you should tell me what "constructive" means. And perhaps you should also tell me what "trolling & flaming" means since I apparently don't know what that means either. Oh I know! Perhaps I can give some examples of trolling and flaming? …. or perhaps.... Are those good examples? Those that cast stones had better be sure they're not standing in glass houses.... Fact is that he DID respond to what you were talking about. Fact is that you have avoided responding to his response. The only one up a tree here is you. You have proven by your multiple avoidances that you have nothing but attacks left in your argument. If you actually had an argument then you would respond to what he said. Enjoy that high tree branch you're on. Just be careful.... They get thinner the higher you go.
When one party is not interested in peace and compromise, and has demonstrated such through the murdering of thousands in cold blood, there is no reason to continue futilely trying to seek out such. There are times in the real world when peace and compromise can only be achieved through the killing of certain problematic individuals.
OK. "Constructive" would be if you'd respond to my statement on the causes of gun violence in the U.S. instead of creating drama over something that you have turned into an off-topic personal confrontation and is (therefore) none of your business. You see, gun violence and the control of guns is what the thread is all about. I've put in my two cents VERY CLEARLY but you are more concerned with stirring up trouble on a personal level … and still not a peep about my statement on gun violence. I know that you only asked me about the term “constructive” but I figure I need to repeat the meaning of “on/off-topic” as well because you do not appear to have understood it very well. Is it too much for you to digest all at one time? So …...? Do you agree with me on the causes of gun violence in the U.S? Do you have some other ideas on the subject? Don't be afraid of me. Speak up. I will very gladly debate it with you, or if you have a real humdinger of an idea I'll adapt it! Gee whizz, that'd be really great! Looking forward to your reply, Thingamabob
Well said and that applies to next-door "neighbours", those in neighbouring countries, and those on the other side of the globe.
Making them harmless doesn't necessarily mean killing them. In a civilized world, they're taken to a court of justice and may be punished if they are guilty.
When dealing with uncivilized animals that is the only solution that works. Hard to do when they refuse to be captured and will fight to their death to prevent such capture.
It's pretty easy to be an extremist if the other side is extremist too. But it's much easier to declare the others as extremists. Never forget that most people want to live in peace. Your enemies too. Are you a Christian? I don't, but I know that this is one of the core messages of Jesus.
