Why do law abiding citizens have a problem with gun control?

Someone who wants to shoot up a sporting event or political rally is going to do so regardless of how nicely you ask them to observe the "gun free zone".

The question is, should the victims of such an event be armed or disarmed, while waiting for guys with guns to get there and start shooting anyway.

Speaking of Orlando, the dishonest media does not talk about the guy who engaged the shooter almost immediately, allowing hundreds to get out of the building and saving who knows how many lives. One guy with a gun prevented a massacre that would have been much, much worse.

 

Why do some police departments need armored vehicles?

 

Because in some of the high crime areas they get shot at. Simple enough for you?

 

What are you being foolish for. I said yes. Then I put a period after it. Then I made another statement to you.

"Yes. Btw,.show me where government has the power to do such." ~ Do you not see how you asked if I am in favor of no restrictions and I said yes? Then I asked you to show me where the government has the power to make such restrictions.

 

Right. So what's the answer?

Are not Trump rallies gun free zones?

So people go to events, bars, nightclubs, sporting events, large crowds of people, drinking and partying. Every day of the year there are events such as these. So should these people be carrying guns to defend themselves or not?

NRA seems to say no, because that would be utter mayhem. They came down on trump for suggesting that had people had guns in Orlando, and were shooting in the other direction, that that would have been a better situation.

Dishonest media? The guy was a uniformed off duty police officer working security. Dishonest is suggesting he's "a guy", like he was just another drunk guy at the club who protected people because he carried a gun.

 

Let the record show to the guy who keeps saying no one said there should be no restrictions!

 

There is nothing different other then you copied and pasted and I didn't. Civilians can't own post 1986 machine guns and only those who qualify can own pre 1986 machine guns.

That civilians can own machine guns......is regulated. Case closed.

 

Pray tell!

 

that's beyond silly. The fact is that the Supreme Court was a slave to FDR and they ignored the tenth amendment for most of that disgusting administration I want you to tell me where you can find any federal power to regulate firearms in Article One Section 8. and I see you don't even try to pretend you have any credentials in this area

 

In truth they do not. They simply desire them because government is providing them free to any department that asks for them.

 

Those who understand this topic generally know who Massad Ayoob is. as he noted in his seminal book-the TRUTH ABOUT SELF DEFENSE-if someone is armed with a stick a bat or nunchucks and he is armed with a knife-he is going to walk away from the fight with a broken arm and the other guy won't be walking at all. So yeah the best response to a knife is a gun, and not having a gun, a sword

 

Sounds like the NRA scare tactics are working

You know when I think of this belief that unarmed means unable to defend yourself I get a mental image of a jim Carey like character standing on a chair screaming "help me he has a gun!!" And facing him is a five year old with a toy gun

 

You are the one bringing up Post 1986 machine guns, I correctly stated Pre 1986 Machine Guns are Civilian legal and transferable, and I did not cut & paste anything.....

 

That is just not true, please post proof of anyone believing there is ZERO RESPONSIBILITY for what happens with a Firearm.

 

The answer is that people who want to take the responsibility of arming themselves be able to do so, regardless of the environment.

Not everyone in a bar drinks, and at a minium the staff that work there should be able to arm themselves.

Trump rallies are gun free zones because anywhere the secret service are, guns are not allowed. It's got nothing to do with Trump.

Gun owners have proven how reliable they are after decades of continually expanding CCW laws, and the advent of constitutional carry. Yet, the only place blood flows in the streets are in places where honest people are disarmed.

A cop is a guy with a gun, no different than anyone else. They do not have magical powers of marksmanship or any more combat experience than any other regular gun owner. The number of cops that actually train for such (SWAT) are the only cops really trained in CQB. The fact that the guy at the door was an off duty cop has nothing to do with it really.

 

Except for the fact that governments have killed far more people than wars.

You're welcome to think you can defend yourself unarmed, I don't really care. I hope you never have to be exposed to reality.

 

So you are saying that any bar anywhere should not be a gun free zone. That anyone should be able to arm themselves in any bar, or large event where people are drinking or anything else. If someone is drinking or not is beside the point of whether it should be allowed. People can "take responsibility" to not drink and drive. But it's against the rules, it's not a thing where people just have to do the "right thing". So do you "police" people drinking and carrying weapons or not?

Well apparently he has many properties that are gun free zones. But regardless, you and Trump feel the rallies should not be gun free. Any and all should be allowed to carry any sort of weapon or gun allowed under the 2nd at a Trump rally or any other .

Has everything to do with it. It's the difference between someone hired to do security professionally and anyone and everyone partying in a crowded bar and carrying weapons and being expected or having the right to use them to defend themselves and others.

You would rather have average people of unknown experience and training, bartenders and bar backs and waitresses and anyone else of unknown background packing any sort of weapon with loud music and drinks flowing over professionally trained uniformed security?

This is what you and the NRA recommends?

 

Yes, and I would not mind cops or security having them either, nor even your crazy ass. But you clearly express the mind of a Leftist, the average Joe can't be counted on to look after him/herself and the government (who happen to be people) are the sane ones. I'm all for people autonomously defending themselves.

I think I could see you gasping at John Adams talking about the celebration of Independence.

You must be like "Oh my gawd! Guns and bonfires!"

Does this worry of yours stem from the animals you see at the Leftist rallies jumping on cars, destroying public and private property? Yes, every human being has the same rights. Rock out with your (*)(*)(*)(*) out, or pack heat.

The government has no power to tell people where they can or can't be armed, "shall not be infringed".

But not handle their arms as you've clearly been trying to demonstrate. Funny.

I recommend you not infringe on my rights, or you might find yourself face to face with a big bad gun. Otherwise you can voluntarily deny yourself your rights. Just keep that shiznit away from me.

 

Have been as there are few places where more casual violence occurs than an emergency dept. I prefer our EDs not to have armed psychotics thanks. And no one has ever explained to me why, if you are so vulnerable without a gun, there are not more people killed in places where guns are scarce

 

Well this is not true (Germany has more homicides for instance than Switzerland, and many of these homicide reports are very shady to begin with, just read them you'll be like wtf), and I would ask you, as fires hardly occur with many people, why keep an extinguisher?

 

Nowhere is a gun free zone. Do you think hanging a sign or making it a law not to bring a gun into an area will stop someone who's plan is to commit mass murder? Do you think allowing people to carry guns makes them want to kill others?

We've seen the statistics on those who have CCW's. They are not the problem. It has already been proven that giving people access to carrying firearms is not a problem.

People who seek CCWs want to carry to defend themselves. People who want to murder ignore every law in pursuit of that goal.

The type of person that gets a DUI is typically the type of person who does it over and over, just as the type of person who commits murder is the type that does it over and over.

I hope people start to realize that areas that allow concealed carry are far safer than so called "gun free zones". It's about as effective as hanging up a "crime free zone" sign over the whole state.

I already explained that guns are not allowed anywhere the secret service is. With the incredible numbers of police and secret service on spot inside a rally, there's really no need to be armed.

I would argue there is a great need to be armed leaving such a rally though, or going to it. As we have seen, leftist mobs love to attack people.

No one said everyone in a bar should be armed. There's no reason a designated driver or club staff should not be armed though. You guys love your "wild west" references, even though as guns and gun laws relax even more in most states, gun violence and crime continues to go down.

Unless that off duty cop was SWAT, most gun owners that carry practice far more than your average cop. As I said, most cops do not train in CQB.

No one is forcing anyone to be armed. There are, however, many people who can and will fill that role as well or better than the police. If a citizen feels they are competent and are willing to take the responsibility for protecting themselves, and possibly others, there is no one who should try to deny them their right.

 

Are you saying Violence is common in Hospital Emergency Rooms, ie E.R.s / Emergency Departments ???

In all my clinical experience in various NYC Hospital Emergency / Trauma / ICU, Violence of any type was actually relatively quite low.

 

I worked in military hospitals for years, including those with psychiatric wards. Every hospital has armed security guards on site.

When a patient attacks you, are you alone and restraining them by yourself? I highly doubt it. Not to mention police and first responders typically restrain or cuff violent people before they even get there.

The most violent countries in the world have little to no guns allowed per capita. There is no worldwide correlation between gun ownership, and gun violence other than in your imagination.

 

Yes, especially in America - if ou do not think so visit a bulletin board called "Allnurses.com" We have just increased the penalties for anyone acting violently against a public servant which includes paramedics police and health care workers

You seem to have experiences that are at variance with researched statistics and reports from my fellow nurses

Results: Approximately 25% of respondents reported experiencing physical violence more than 20 times in the past 3 years, and almost 20% reported experiencing verbal abuse more than 200 times during the same period. Respondents who experienced frequent physical violence and/or frequent verbal abuse indicated fear of retaliation and lack of support from hospital administration and ED management as barriers to reporting workplace violence.

Conclusion: Violence against ED nurses is highly prevalent. Precipitating factors to violent incidents identified by respondents is consistent with the research literature; however, there is considerable potential to mitigate these factors. Commitment from hospital administrators, ED managers, and hospital security is necessary to facilitate improvement and ensure a safer workplace for ED nurses.
http://journals.lww.com/jonajournal...against_nurses_working_in_us_emergency.9.aspx

Results.  Most research focused on the incidence rates of workplace violence in the emergency department and effects on staff. There was a significant lack of intervention studies to provide a framework for guiding evidence-based practice. Themes of under-reporting violence, barriers and attitudes towards reporting, description and characterisation of incidents of violence, predisposing factors and the concept of safety or lack of fear were all major content areas addressed in the literature.

Conclusions.  Incidence of workplace violence in the emergency department has been well documented in numerous published studies. Emergency department workers are exposed to significant rates of physical and verbal abuse. Under-reporting of workplace violence in the emergency department is common and contributes to the difficulty in accurately tracking violence.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2010.03342.x/full

- - - Updated - - -

Actually the nurses can be alone in the initial attack as it is not common to always work in two's and the patient can escalated very rapidly - especially when under the influence

 

You know I looked up the relative rates of homicide - and while it is true that Germany has a higher rate it is a 0.4% difference

Big whoop!

As for Switzerland - it is not exactly the "no holds barred gun paradise" that the NRA sycophants would like you to believe

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland