When mass killers meet armed resistance - Page 6

thomez · 05-03-2007, 01:17 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

I'm k. My friend in Mass just did this 2 years ago.

k: what did you have to do to get your gun permit
D: in MA, it's up to each police cheif if they issue one, or not...
k: any class? any test?
D: for hand gun carry license, yes....class...no test...
k: class is mandatory?
D: class A is license to carry concealed...class required...
D: class B is hand guns, but not carry...class required...

and I don't see anywhere on the licensing application for NH where it asks for "course/training/class" information

http://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/n...nts/dssp85.pdf

actually, I get pissed when people guess and I often tell them to call and get the real answer. I just called my local police dept. There is no class, no test, ..... just fill out the application and they do their federally mandated check and then issue the license.

I wasn't saying that you were wrong, but that I thought that was the exception, not the rule.

Kytro · 05-03-2007, 11:05 PM

Originally Posted by thomez

I'm not sure how you can continue to disagree with the justifications when it is extremely clear that people have both saved their own lives and the lives of others by legally arming themselves.

This availability of arms has never gone wrong, or caused any harm?

I think proponents tend to play up the benefits just as opponents play up the possibility of things going wrong.

A well-trained individual with a gun in the right circumstances could prove helpful. Just as badly-trained one in wrong circumstances could be trouble.

I'm saying what people use as justifications are an over-exaggeration of the need

thomez · 05-04-2007, 12:14 AM

The "need" is the basic need of everyone to protect themselves, you cannot exaggerate that.

trevxenemy · 05-04-2007, 02:02 PM

Originally Posted by Kytro

Well I would contend that your position is influenced by your bias. Most of these guys end up killing themselves, so I doubt it is a major concern for them.

So if they're gonna kill 15-20 people, then themselves, it's okay?

Why not let CCW on campus, then when the shooter kills one person or fires one shoot, someone pulls out their Glock and puts him on the ground.. before he gets to the 15-20 dead?

Your logic is odd.

trevxenemy · 05-04-2007, 02:03 PM

Originally Posted by Kytro

This is true, though it depends on the context. Armed forces and police the world over, crime gangs etc..

If you mean just normal law-abiding citizens.....

I personally see no problem with criminals killing each other and making life easier for cops.

Perhaps I'm cynical.

Donkey® · 05-04-2007, 02:05 PM

Originally Posted by trevxenemy

So if they're gonna kill 15-20 people, then themselves, it's okay?

Why not let CCW on campus, then when the shooter kills one person or fires one shoot, someone pulls out their Glock and puts him on the ground.. before he gets to the 15-20 dead?

Your logic is odd.

And your "logic" that someone with a gun would even do something to stop the massacre JUST because they have a gun is odd.

trevxenemy · 05-04-2007, 02:15 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

And your "logic" that someone with a gun would even do something to stop the massacre JUST because they have a gun is odd.

It's better to be safe than sorry. I'd rather carry a 9mm and know that, at all times, I can protect myself and I'm in no immediate danger from anyone who may choose to end my life unexpectedly. You, however, think that the police can do everything.

Perhaps you should research average response times - keyword being RESPONSE. Police merely respond to a crime AFTER it has been committed. So, the person dies, then they go find the killer. Let me keep my gun and try to kill me, I promise you won't win.

Donkey® · 05-04-2007, 02:17 PM

Originally Posted by trevxenemy

It's better to be safe than sorry. I'd rather carry a 9mm and know that, at all times, I can protect myself and I'm in no immediate danger from anyone who may choose to end my life unexpectedly. You, however, think that the police can do everything.

Perhaps you should research average response times - keyword being RESPONSE. Police merely respond to a crime AFTER it has been committed. So, the person dies, then they go find the killer. Let me keep my gun and try to kill me, I promise you won't win.

Right. Because it's the old west and you'll ALWAYS be able to outdraw a criminal that wants to kill you.

trevxenemy · 05-04-2007, 02:30 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Right. Because it's the old west and you'll ALWAYS be able to outdraw a criminal that wants to kill you.

First of all, I'd never give anyone a desire to kill me personally. Secondly, I'd like to say I'm pretty well-trained in regards to handling firearms, and myself. Thirdly, the old west was much better than what we have now. At least people could protect their homes without facing criminal charges.

7960 · 05-04-2007, 03:40 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

And your "logic" that someone with a gun would even do something to stop the massacre JUST because they have a gun is odd.

and your "logic" that there should be no guns 100% guarantees that

trevxenemy · 05-04-2007, 03:43 PM

7960 is all up in your threads, owning your liberals.

7960 · 05-04-2007, 03:47 PM

Originally Posted by trevxenemy

7960 is all up in your threads, owning your liberals.

it just really bugs me that people are saying we need to take away guns and let the police protect us in the same thread where we're discussing a guy who illegally brought guns into a place where they weren't allowed and used them to kill people while the police didn't protect them.

that people can't see the irony is really, really bugging me.

Donkey® · 05-04-2007, 04:13 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

and your "logic" that there should be no guns 100% guarantees that

That was never my logic to begin with so thanks for being wrong AGAIN.

Donkey® · 05-04-2007, 04:14 PM

Originally Posted by trevxenemy

7960 is all up in your threads, owning your liberals.

trevxenemy is all up in our threads being a dipshit.

Donkey® · 05-04-2007, 04:14 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

it just really bugs me that people are saying we need to take away guns and let the police protect us in the same thread where we're discussing a guy who illegally brought guns into a place where they weren't allowed and used them to kill people while the police didn't protect them.

that people can't see the irony is really, really bugging me.

I haven't said that ONE TIME. Maybe someone else did...I don't know. I sure didn't read it anywhere.

Scrum · 05-04-2007, 05:35 PM

Originally Posted by trevxenemy

Why not let CCW on campus...

So you are for forcing private universities to allow guns onto their property?

Kytro · 05-06-2007, 08:51 AM

Originally Posted by thomez

The "need" is the basic need of everyone to protect themselves, you cannot exaggerate that.

Of course you can. You need to protect yourself only if something threatens you.

A person going into battle will have a greater need for defence than joe blogs.

Kytro · 05-06-2007, 08:53 AM

Originally Posted by trevxenemy

So if they're gonna kill 15-20 people, then themselves, it's okay?

I never implied that it was.

Kytro · 05-06-2007, 08:54 AM

Originally Posted by trevxenemy

I personally see no problem with criminals killing each other and making life easier for cops.

Perhaps I'm cynical.

I don't know about that. Allowing them to kill each other does nothing to weaken the crime bosses.

Kytro · 05-06-2007, 08:55 AM

Anyway in case it is not clear.

I have no problems with peopl carrying guns so long as the are well trained and not an obvious risk to society.